POTTER 

Pastoral  Letter  cto  the 
Clergy  of  the  Diocese  of 


BX 

5837 
P6 


PASTORAL  LETTER 


RT.  REV.  H.  POTTER,  D.D,  D.C.L, 


THE  REPLIES 


The    Rev.    S.    H.   TYNG-,    D.T)., 

K-    H.    CjAJSniGIliD,    I3.D., 

COTTON    SIVLITU,    33.U 
K    D.ID. 


JOHN  A.  GRAY  &  <;RKKX,  PIMNTKHS,  ic,  <t  is  JACOB  STREKT. 

1865. 


<T 


A   PASTORAL    LETTER 

TO 

THE  CLERGY  OF  THE  DIOCESE 

OF    NEW-YORK, 

FROM 

THE     BISHOP*. 


MAY,   MDCCCLXV. 


TO    THE 


CLERGY  OF  THE  DIOCESE  OF  NEW-YORK. 


REV.  AND  DEAR  BRETHREN: 

It  is  with  some  reluctance,  and  after  a  good  deal  of  reflection, 
that  I  yield  to  the  sense  of  duty  which  impels  me  to  address  to 
you  the  following  considerations,  touching  the  Law  of  the  Church. 
While  a  communication  like  the  present  must  of  necessity  be 
sent  to  all  the  Clergy  of  the  Diocese  without  distinction,  yet  it 
is  a  happiness  to  believe  that  there  are  but  few  among  a  large 
number  for  whom  such  suggestions  as  those  now  presented  can 
be  at  all  necessary.  And  if  there  should  be  a  few  Clergymen  in 
the  Diocese  who  are  conscious  to  themselves  that  there  has  been 
something  in  their  official  proceedings  which  may  have  had  some 
influence  in  suggesting  the  propriety  and  even  necessity  of  these 
present  observations,  it  is  believed  that  they  will  be  candid 
enough  to  recognize  and  acknowledge  these  two  truths  : 

First.  That  the  present  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  has  been  un- 
failing in  his  personal  kindness  toward  themselves — in  his  mani- 
festations of  personal  respect  and  regard ;  and 

Second.  That  his  administration  of  the  Diocese  (whatever 
may  have  been  its  faults  in  other  respects)  has  not  been  marked 
by  any  disposition  on  his  part  to  impose  needless  restraints  upon 
the  official  conduct  of  the  Clergy,  or  to  interfere  in  any  way  with- 
out necessity  with  their  freedom  of  action. 

If,  on  the  present  occasion,  the  Bishop  steps  forth  in  an  unusual 
way  to  address  his  Brethren,  it  is  because  he  fears  that  things 
have  occurred  in  the  way  of  clerical  action  which  are  contrary 
to  the  Law  of  the  Church,  and  injurious  to  its  peace  and  good 
order ;  because  he  has  been  again  and  again  appealed  to  by  both 
Clergymen  and  Laymen  (who  are  not  apt  to  be  busybodies,  or 


censorious)  to  do  something  to  check  what  seems  to  be  a  growing 
evil ;  and  above  all,  because  he  hopes  that  there  arc  those  who 
may  have  acted  hastily,  and  who,  upon  a  candid  and  serious 
review  of  their  obligations  and  duties,  will  change  their  view  of 
what  it  is  right  for  them  to  do  as  Ministers  of  this  Church,  and 
will  throw  the  influence  of  their  judgment  and  example  upon  the 
side  of  order  and  unity  within  their  own  fold. 

Suffer  me,  then,  dear  Brethren,  in  all  meekness  and  charity,  to 
lay  before  you,  for  your  consideration,  some  of  the  principles  and 
laws  of  the  Church  which  we  accepted  when  we  became  her 
ministers,  and  which,  with  all  the  solemnities  of  an  oath,  we 
bound  ourselves  to  observe. 

1.  Just  previous  to  our   Ordination,  (when   admitted  to   the 
Diaconate,  and  again  when  advanced  to  the  Priesthood,)  a  cere- 
monial which  rises  above  every  thing  else  that  we  know  in  life  by 
its  awful  religious  solemnity,  we  deliberately  write  and  pronounce 
to  the  Bishop,  the  following  emphatic  declaration  :  "  I  do  believe 
the  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  to  be  the 
Word  of  God,  and  to  contain  all  things  necessary  to  Salvation ; 
a7id  I  do  solemnly  engage  to  conform  to  the  Doctrines  and  Wor- 
ship of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States." 

2.  Then,  in  the  midst  of  the  service  of  Ordination,  as  we  stood 
before  the  Bishop  and  before  the  Holy  Table,  we  were  asked  : 

"  Will  you  then  give  your  faithful  diligence  always  so  to  minis- 
ter the  Doctrine  and  Sacraments,  and  the  Discipline  of  Christ,  as 
the  Lord  hath  commanded,  and  as  this  Church  hath  received  the 
same,  according  to  the  commandments  of  God,  so  that  you  may 
teach  the  people  committed  to  your  care  and  charge  with  all  dili- 
gence, to  keep  and  observe  the  same  ?" 

To  which  each  one  of  us  deliberately  replied  :  "  1 will  do  so,  by 
the  help  of  the  Lord" 

3.  Let  us  now  see  what  are  the  Doctrines,  Discipline,  and  Wor- 
ship of  this  Church,  to  which,  with  so  much  solemnity,  we  pro- 
mised conformity  at  our  ordination. 

First. — In  the  Preface  to  the  Ordinal,  the  Church  sets  forth 
her  principles  and  her  law  in  regard  to  the  sacred  ministry,  in 
the  most  clear,  formal,  and  authoritative  way.  She  says :  "  It  is 
evident  unto  all  men  diligently  reading  Holy  Scripture  and  An- 
cient Authors,  that  from  the  Apostles'  time,  there  have  been  these 
orders  of  ministers  in  Christ's  Church — JSishops,  Priests,  and 
Deacons.  Which  offices  were  evermore  had  in  such  reverend 


estimation,  that  no  man  might  presume  to  execute  any  of  them, 
except  he  were  first  called,  tried,  examined,  and  known  to  have 
such  qualities  as  are  requisite  for  the  same  ;  and  also  by  public 
prayer,  with  imposition  of  hands,  were  approved  and  admitted 
thereunto  by  lawful  authority.  And  therefore,  to  the  intent  that 
these  Orders  may  be  continued,  and  reverently  used  and  esteemed 
in  this  Church,  no  man  shall  be  accounted  or  taken  to  be  a  lawful 
Bishop,  Priest,  or  Deacon,  in  this  Church,  or  suffered  to  execute 
any  of  the  said  functions,  except  he  be  called,  tried,  examined,  and 
admitted  thereunto,  according  to  the  form  hereafter  following,  or 
hath  had  Episcopal  Consecration  or  Ordination" 

Second. — Then  the  Church  proceeds,  according  to  that  declara- 
tion, to  enact,  in  her  very  first  Canon,  that  "  In  this  Church,  there 
shall  always  be  three  orders  in  the  ministry,  viz. :  JBishops,  Priests, 
and  Deacons  y"  of  course  Episcopally  ordained  and  consecrated, 
for 

Third. — In  the  sixth  section  of  her  fifth  Canon  (Title  I.)  she 
enacts,  that  "  Candidates,  who,  not  having  Episcopal  Ordination, 
have  been  acknowledged  as  ordained  or  licensed  ministers  in  any 
other  denomination  of  Christians,  may,  at  the  expiration  of  not 
less  than  six  months  from  their  admission  as  candidates,  be  ordain- 
ed Deacons  on  their  passing  the  same  examinations  as  other  can- 
didates for  Deacons'  orders."  Whence  appears  the  importance 
which  she  attaches  to  Episcopal  ordination — for, 

Fourth. — In  the  ninth  Canon  (Title  I.)  she  provides  for  receiv- 
ing a  "  Deacon  or  Priest  ordained  by  a  Bishop  not  in  communion 
with  this  Church,"  (after  due  inquiry  and  examination,  and  a  pro- 
bation of  six  months,  and  a  declaration  of  conformity,)  as  a  minis- 
ter of  this  Church,  without  reordination. 

Fifth. — And  in  her  eleventh  Canon  (Title  I.)  this  Church  enacts 
that  "  Xo  person  shall  be  permitted  to  officiate  in  any  congrega- 
tion of  this  Church,  without  first  producing  the  evidence  of  his 
beiug  a  minister  thereof,  to  the  minister,  or  in  case  of  vacancy  or 
absence,  to  the  Church  "Wardens,  Vestrymen,  or  Trustees  of  the 
congregation." 

Having  thus  provided  that  none  but  episcopally  ordained  Cler- 
gymen shall  minister  in  any  of  her  congregations,  this  Church 
next  prescribes,  with  the  utmost  care  and  precision,  the  form  of 
worship  to  which  they  are  to  conform. 

In  her  twentieth  Canon  (Title  I.)  she  ordains,  that  "  every 
Minister  shall,  before  all  sermons  and  lectures,  and  on  all  other 


6 

occasions  of  public  worship),  use  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer, 
as  the  same  is  or  may  be  established  by  the  authority  of  the 
Gi'iuTal  Convention  of  this  Church  ;  and  in  performing  such 
service  no  other  prayers  shall  be  used  than  those  prescribed  by  the 
!  Book" 

Finally,  in  Canon  2,  (Title  II.,)  the  Church  enumerates  the 
offences  for  which  every  Minister  shall  be  liable  to  be  presented, 
tried,  and  punished ;  and  among  them  she  mentions  "  violation  of 
the  Constitution  or  Canons  of  this  Church,  or  of  the  Diocese  to 
ichich  he  belongs"  and  orders  that,  "  on  being  found  guilty,  he 
shall  be  admonished,  suspended,  or  degraded,  according  to  the 
Canons  of  the  Diocese  in  which  the  trial  takes  place" 

The  same  Canon  provides  that,  "  if  a  Minister  of  this  Church 
shall  be  accused  by  public  rumor"  of  any  one  of  certain  enumerat- 
ed offences,  one  of  them  being  that  "of  violating  the  Canons" 

"  IT  SHALL  BE  THE  DUTY  OF  THE  BlSHOP  TO  SEE  THAT  AN  IXQUIRY 
BE  INSTITUTED  AS  TO  THE  TRUTH  OF  SUCH  PUBLIC  RUMOR,"  and 

that  if  the  accused  be  convicted  after  due  process,  "  he  shall  be 
admonished,  suspended,  or  degraded,  as  the  nature  of  the  case 
may  require" 

It  will  be  apparent,  from  the  Canon  last  referred  to,  that  the 
Bishop  is  as  much  under  the  guidance  and  control  of  the  Law  of 
the  Church,  as  is  any  other  Clergyman  ;  and  that  when  charges, 
duly  supported,  are  presented,  and  even  when  public  rumor,  ac- 
cusing a  clergyman,  takes  a  clear  and  definite  form,  with  reason- 
able probability  of  being  well  founded,  the  Bishop  has  little  or 
no  discretion,  but  is  bound  to  proceed  "  diligently  to  exercise 
such  discipline  as,  by  the  authority  of  God's  Word,  and  by  the 
order  of  this  Church,  is  committed  to  him." 

From  the  preceding  review  of  the  Principles  and  Law  of  the 
Church,  these  particulars  plainly  appear  : 

1.  The  Church  makes  a  fundamental  distinction  between  Minis- 
ters Episcopally  ordained,  and  ministers  not  Episcopally  ordain- 
ed ;  for  when  she  admits  them  to  serve  at  her  altars,  she  reordains 
the  latter,  but  she  does  not  reordain  the  former. 

2.  The  Church  requires  of  all  who  minister  to  her  congrega- 
tions two  things :  Jirst,  that  they  be  Episcopally  ordained,  and 
second,   that  they  be    Episcopally   ordained   ministers   of   this 
Church.     Xon-Episcopal  divines  are,  therefore,  doubly  excluded 
—first,  because  they  are  not  Episcopally  ordained ;  and  second, 
because  they  are  not  ministers  of  this  Church. 


3.  The  Church  clearly  excludes  ministers  and  licentiates  of  non- 
Episcopal  bodies,  not  only  from  administering  the  Sacraments, 
but  also  from  teaching  within  her  fold,  holding  them  to  be  incom- 
petent; for  she  requires  them  to  be  regularly  admitted  as  candi- 
dates for  Holy  Orders— to  pass  a  probation  of  six  months— and 
to  submit  to  full  theological  examinations;  those  examinations 
having  special  reference  to  points  of  difference  between  the 
Church  and  the  Body  from  which  the  minister  comes. 

4.  The  Church,  so  far  from  aiming  at  novelty  or  variety  in  her 
devotional  services,  is  severe  in  the  provision  which  she  makes 
for  securing  absolute  uniformity  of  worship.     She  will  not  allow 
her  children  to  be  distorbed  in  their  solemn  acts  of  worship  by 
the  intrusion  of  novel  forms  or  expressions.     She  leaves  nothing 
to  the  fancy  or  caprice  of  the  officiating  minister.     If  he  become 
lax  or  unsound  in  his  teaching,  the  Creeds,  the  Litany,  the  Te 
Deum,  the  Confession  and  Absolution,  the  Prayers  and  Praises, 
the  offices  for  Baptism,  for  Confirmation,  for  the  Holy  Communion, 
for  Matrimony,  and  for  the  Burial  of  the  Dead  in  Christ— these 
will  rebuke  him,  and  help  to  sustain  the  faith  and  devotion  of  the 
people  in  spite  of  his  ignorance  or  unfaithfulness.     Nothing  can 
be  more  clear  and  absolute  than  the  Law  which  the  Church  has 
ordained  and  evidently  means  to  enforce.      "Every  minister," 
she  says,  "  shall,  before  all  Sermons  and  Lectures,  and  on  all  other 
occasions  of  Public  Worship,  use  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer 
as  the  same  is  or  may  be  established  by  the  authority  of  the 
General   Convention  of  this   Church;   and  in  performing  such 
Service,  no  other  prayers  shall  be  used  than  those  prescribed  by 
the  said  book."    The  only  exception  to  this  rule  is  the  permis- 
sion given  to  the  Bishop,  and  only  .to  the  Bishop,  to  set  forth 
temporarily  prayers  or  thanksgivings  for  certain  special  and 
extraordinary  occasions.  - 

5.  Finally,  we  have  seen  that  the  Church  repeatedly  and  in  the 
most  solemn  manner,  binds  the  conscience  of  every  minister  she 
ordains,  to  a  strict  conformity  to  her  Doctrines,  Discipline,  and 
Worship.     She  holds  God  to  be  a  God  of  order  and  not  of  con- 
fusion.   She  leaves  others  to  employ  their  own  methods;  but 
within  her  own  fold  she  will  endure  no  irregularity,  no  trifling 
with  what  upon  indubitable  evidence  she  avers  to  be  "  the  TrutlT, 
the  whole  Truth,  and  nothing  but  the  Trulh"  of  God. 

Surely  nothing  can  be  good  in  itself— nothing  can  lead  to  ul- 
timate good  which  involves  a  violation  of  obligations  so  solemnly 


8 

assumed.     Disobedience  to  Laws  to  which  we  have  given  our 

,,nt — disobedience  to  the  laws  of  that  Spiritual  Household  of 
which  we  are  members,  is  enough  to  vitiate  any  course  of  action, 
however,  in  other  respects,  it  may  commend  itself  to  certain  ami- 
able feelings  of  our  nature. 

Christian  unity,  based  upon  sound  principles,  and  obtained  by 
legitimate  methods,  is,  no  doubt,  a  consummation  to  be  devoutly 
longed  for  and  prayed  for.  But  if,  while  we  please  ourselves 
with  beautiful  visions  of  fraternal  union,  we  rush  out  of  our  legi- 
timate sphere,  and  violate  the  laws  of  that  sphere,  we  create 
division  in  the  circle  where  our  first  duties  are  appointed,  and 
our  efforts  tend  to  disorder  and  confusion  rather  than  to  peace 
and  harmony. 

It  is  believed  that  the  recent  movements,  to  which  I  am  now 
referring,  will  have  for  their  only  result  considerable  disquiet  and 
offence  within  the  Church,  and,  in  the  end,  a  new  outbreak  of 
bitterness  toward  us  from  without.  These  movements  will  speed- 
ily come  to  nothing.  The  great  majority  of  the  Clergy  and  Laity 
will  strongly  disapprove  of  them ;  and  the  Ministers  of  other 
religious  bodies  will  not  long  find  it  consistent  with  their  self- 
respect  to  avail  themselves  of  concessions  which  can  be  proffered 
only  by  a  few,  and  only  through  a  violation  of  engagements 
generally  deemed  sacred. 

Great  movements  in  the  ecclesiastical  world,  like  great  changes 
in  civil  affairs,  come  more  frequently  from  unexpected  openings 
of  Divine  Providence,  than  from  any  wit,  or  foresight,  or  pre- 
concerted schemes  of  man.  And  if  we  quietly  go  on  doing  "  our 
duty  in  that  state  of  life  to  which  it  hath  pleased  God  to  call  us" 
— firm  in  regard  to  principles  and  obligations,  but  kind  and  chari- 
table toward  persons — we  may  humbly  trust  that  the  adorable 
Head  of  the  Church  will,  in  His  own  good  time  and  way,  restore 
to  us  some  of  those  blessings  of  unity  and  fraternal  communion, 
the  loss  of  which  we  so  deeply  deplore.  But  when  individuals 
take  the  cause  of  unity  into  their  own  hands,  and  initiate  pro- 
ceedings which  are  repudiated  by  the  great  majority  of  their 
brethren,  which  are  contrary  to  the  usages  and  antecedents  of 
the  Church,  and  contrary  to  the  well-established  judgment  of  the 
Church  as  to  the  meaning  and  intent  of  her  Law ;  then  the  result 
must  be,  as  has  Been  said,  not  an  augmented  tendency  to  union 
and  harmony,  but  an  unusual  rising  up  of  disturbance  and  divi- 
sion. Already  we  hear  of  criminations  and  recriminations  among 


.9 

Brethren.  There  are  those  who  are  offended  at  what  they  be- 
lieve to  be  violations  of  the  law  of  the  Church — things  which 
they  consider  as  calctilated  to  obscure  the  principles  of  the 
Church,  to  impair  her  authority,  and  to  disturb  her  peace ;  while 
there  are  others  who  resent  such  criticism,  and  fling  back  upon 
the  objectors  charges  of  bigotry  and  narrow-mindedness.  Nor 
will  the  Bishop  himself  escape  this  special  outbreak  of  odium  and 
censure.  Mild  and  forbearing  as  he  has  ever  been  toward  eccen- 
tric persons  within  the  Church,  kind  and  respectful  and  warm- 
hearted as  he  has  been  in  private  life  toward  many  ministers  and 
laymen  of  other  religious  bodies,  he  will  not  be  able  to  put  forth 
a  word  in  support  of  order  and  law,  however  temperate,  and 
however  strictly  it  may  be  in  the  line  of  his  bounden  duty,  with- 
out exposing  himself  to  hard  thoughts  from  within  the  Church, 
and  to  bitter  denunciations  from  without. 

A  claim  has  been  put  forth  in  some  quarters  that  certain  novel 
movements,  not  having  been  distinctly  arraigned  and  censured, 
are  therefore  to  be  considered  as  having  obtained  authoritative 
recognition  in  the  Church,  and  are  henceforth  to  be  looked  upon 
as  being  within  the  limits  of  the  Church's  Law  and  Practice. 
Surely  no  claim  can  be  more  utterly  unfounded.  Not  by  any 
means  is  every  act  to  be  held  as  lawful  and  right,  which  is  not 
immediately  arraigned  and  censured.  Were  such  a  principle 
admitted,  forbearance,  even  in  little  things,  would  cease  to  be  a 
virtue  in  a  Bishop.  There  is  little  danger  that  an  idea  so  very 
erroneous  will  ever  mislead  many  clergymen  or  laymen  of  the 
Church. 

And  in  this  connection  I  beg  to  express  the  hope  that  those  of 
my  Brethren  who  have  felt  themselves  aggrieved  by  practices  at 
variance,  as  they  believe,  with  the  law  and  usages  of  the  Church, 
will  not,  at  least  at  present,  make  those  practices  the  subject  of  a 
formal  complaint.  It  is  believed  that,  after  an  appeal  like  the 
present,  (not  now  to  speak  of  private  communications,  in  some 
instances  previously  made,)  to  the  good  sense  and  right  feeling 
of  the  Diocese,  those  irregularities  may  be  safely  left  to  such 
restraint  and  correction  as  they  will  unquestionably  receive  from 
the  general  judgment  of  the  Church.  They  will  be  limited  to  a 
very  narrow  circle,  and  they  will  be  impotent  and  fugitive,  as 
every  thing  must  be  impotent  and  fugitive,  which  is  in  the  nature 
of  a  departure  from  a  Polity  so  reasonable  and  so  well  settled 
as  is  ours. 


10 

It  is  with  a  good  deal  of  regret  that  I  have  observed  the  kind 
of  argument  employed  in  justification  of  irregularities,  some  of 
which  seem  to  have  been  deliberately  introduced,  as  the  com- 
mencement of  a  new  system  designed  to  be  continued.  Within 
a  year,  two  exceptional  services  have  been  held  in  Churches  in 
this  city— one  of  them  with  the  cordial  approval,  the  other  with 
the  bare  assent,  of  the  Bishop.  I  refer  to  a  service  celebrated  by 
a  Priest  of  the  Oriental  Church  in  Trinity  Chapel,  on  the  Anni- 
versary of  the  Accession  of  the  Emperor  of  Russia  to  the  throne ; 
and  to  a  service  held  by  a  non-Episcopal  divine,  in  a  foreign 
tongue,  under  very  peculiar  circumstances,  in  the  Church  of  the 
Holy  Communion.  In  both  cases  the  services  were  for  congrega- 
tions totally  distinct  from  those  of  the  Church.  The  Church  was 
in  no  way  responsible  for  the  character  of  those  services,  except 
as  permission  had  been  given  to  hold  them  at  a  time  when  the 
Churches  were  not  required  for  the  use  of  the  ordinary  cono-re- 
gation.  There  was  no  official  intermingling  of  services  by  minis- 
ters, some  of  whom  were  of  this  Church,  and  some  not.  In 
neither  case  was  the  service  likely  to  be  repeated. 

The  Priest  of  the  Oriental  Church  comes  to  •  this  country  to 
minister  to  a  very  few  members  of  his  Church,  thinly  scattered 
all  the  way  from  Maine  to  Louisiana.  For  twenty  or  thirty  years 
the  children  have  remained  unbaptized,  and  the  people  have  been 
deprived  of  the  Holy  Eucharist.  The  Church  has  not  a  single 
house  of  worship  within  these  States.  It  has  been  repeatedly 
recognized  by  the  Bishops  of  this  Church  as  a  sister-Church.  It 
has  never  excommunicated  us,  nor  cursed  us.  It  has  never  bound 
upon  the  consciences  of  its  people  the  errors  and  corruptions  of 
the  middle  ages.  The  apostolicity  of  its  ministry  is  unquestion- 
able. The  Priest  is  allowed  to  hold  his  services  in  a  small  retired 
room  in  an  edifice  devoted  to  Parish  schools  in  the  rear  of  St. 
John's  Chapel.  But  a  day  is  approaching,  which  is  one  of  special  t 
interest  to  the  whole  Russian  Empire,  and  to  the  Church  in  that' 

Empire,  as  it  is  dedicated  to  the  honor  of  her  chief  civil  ruler 

a  ruler  who  has  distinguished  himself  by  the  most  beneficent  re- 
forms, and  who,  in  common  with  all  his  people,  has  won  our 
esteem  by  sympathy  with  us,  not  only  heretofore,  but  in  a  marked 
manner  in  our  late  grievous  trials.  It  seems  but  decent  and 
reasonable  that  the  services  for  that  national  day  should  be  held 
in  a  place  where  they  can  be  conducted  with  dignity,  and  be  at- 
tended without  inconvenience. 


11 

Under  such  circumstances,  and  without  assuming  any  responsi- 
bility with  regard  to  the  peculiar  features  of  the  services  to  be 
celebrated,  permission  is  given  by  the  Rector  and  by  the  Bishop 
to  that  Priest  of  a  sister-Church  to  hold  them  in  the  Chapel  at  a 
time  when  it  is  not  required  for  the  use  of  the  ordinary  conore- 
gation. 

In  regard  to  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  the  other  case,  it  is 
unnecessary  to  speak.  Certainly,  the  specious  plea  urged  on  that 
occasion  will  never  be  admitted  again  by  the  present  Bishop. 
The  case  was  wholly  exceptional,  beginning  and  ending  with 
itself.  Let  it  be  granted  that  the  permission  to  hold  that  service 
was  an  irregularity ;  let  the  Bishop  be  duly  censured.  He  is  en- 
tirely content  to  have  it  so ;  but  he  is  not  content  that  two  such 
cases  should  be  made  a  cover  for  the  introduction  of  usages  which 
are  apparently  designed  to  be,  if  possible,  continued,  that  they 
may  modify,  if  not  revolutionize,  the  existing  system  of  the 
Church— usages  which  are  at  variance  with  her  principles  and 
with  her  well-settled  practice. 

In  the  cases  of  irregularity  which  have  been  so  widely  com- 
plained of,  ministers  of  this  Church  are  understood  to  have  united 
with  ministers  of  non-Episcopal  bodies  in  holding  services  in 
Churches  of  this  Diocese  ;  or  else  ministers  of  this  Church  went 
to  non-Episcopal  places  of  worship  and  preached,  without  the 
due  performance  of  the  devotional  services  enjoined  by  the  law  of 
the  Church.  There  seemed  to  be  an  express  design- to  unite  with 
the  ministers  of  other  bodies  in  the  same  services.  There  could 
be  no  plea  on  either  side  that  there  was  any  lack  of  places  of 
worship  suited  to  their  respective  needs,  and  expressly  adapted 
to  their  ordinary  habits  of  devotion. 

It  has  been  claimed  that  the  congregations  ministered  to  on 
these  occasions  by  non-Episcopal  divines  in  Episcopal  churches 
were  not,  in  the  canonical  sense,  "  congregations  of  this  Church." 
The  fact  that  a  general  invitation  was  given  to  members  of  differ- 
ent religious  bodies  to  assemble  in  one  of  our  churches  for  a  par- 
ticular purpose,  and  unite  with  so  many  members  of  that  congre- 
gation, and  of  others  of  our  congregations,  as  might  incline  to  bo 
present,  was  alleged  to  make  the  assemblage  something  different 
from  what  is  spoken  of  in  the  Canon  as  a  "  congregation  of  this 
Church."  But  it  is  believed  that  no  unbiased  member  of  our 
communion  could  go  into  one  of  our  churches,  and  find  a  congre- 
gation composed  largely  of  our  own  people,  composed  largely  of 


12 

the  members  of  that  Parish,  and  after  the  celebration  of  our  wor- 
ship with  more  or  less  of  regularity,  see  a  Presbyterian  divine 
ascend  the  pulpit  to  preach,  without  a  strong  feeling  that  it  was 
a  gross  innovation,  and  a  flagrant  violation  of  the  spirit  and 
intent  of  our  law ;  and  of  the  principles  of  our  Church,  as  inter- 
preted by  the  general  practice  and  the  unvarying  judgment  of 
the  great  body  of  our  divines,  both  English  and  American.  And 
if  it  was  proclaimed,  in  the  time  of  such  service,  that  the  novel 
union  was  a  deliberate  arrangement,  was  a  preconcerted  tentative 
effort,  designed  to  inaugurate  a  course  of  similar  services,  which 
would  be  a  recognition  of  a  non-Episcopal  ministry,  such  notice 
would  hardly  lessen  the  severity  of  the  judgment  that  would  be 
pronounced  against  the  whole  proceeding. 

In  conclusion — for  it  is  unnecessary  to  extend  these  observa- 
tions— I  beg  to  remind  such  of  my  Brethren  as  may  feel  them- 
selves more  particularly  concerned  in  the  present  communication, 
that  the  question  now  under  consideration  is  not  a  question  of 
respect  for  Christians  of  this  or  that  name,  or  of  esteem  for  the 
religious  character  of  individual  ministers  of  this  or  that  denomi- 
nation. Much  less  is  it  a  question  as  to  whether  we,  as  indivi- 
duals, approve  in  our  private  judgment  of  every  particular  restric- 
tion contained  in  the  Law  of  the  Church.  While  we  remain  in 
the  Church,  we  must  accept  and  consider  ourselves  as  bound  by 
the  Principles  and  Law  of  the  Church,  just  as  they  are.  Should 
they  be  changed  hereafter — which  is  not  probable — then  our 
obligations  might  be  different  from  what  they  are  now.  But, 
until  then,  it  is  believed  that  every  considerate  and  conscientious 
minister  of  this  Church  will  feel,  upon  a  calm  and  candid  review 
of  the  whole  subject,  that  his  line  of  duty  is  very  simple  and 
very  plain — to  adhere,  most  scrupulously,  without  qualification 
and  without  reserve,  to  the  Principles  and  Law  of  the  Church,  as 
he  finds  them  established,  and  as  they  have  been  interpreted  (not 
by  individuals,  but)  by  the  great  body  of  Bishops,  Clergy,  and 
People,  in  their  practice  and  in  their  authoritative  declarations. 
The  mere  promptings  of  sentiment  and  self-will  which  disregard 
the  paramount  obligations  of  obedience,  can  never  be  really  use- 
ful— ean  never  be  entitled  to  our  respect.  Is  it  too  much  to  say 
that  they  can  never  be  innocent  ? 

The  Church,  in  her  statement  of  principles  and  in  her  law, 
makes  it  as  clear  as  any  truth  ever  can  be  made,  that  she  means 
to  erect,  and  has  erected,  an  effectual  barrier  between  all  within 


13 

her  fold,  and  the  official  action  of  ministers  of  non-Episcopal 
bodies.  For  many  of  those  ministers,  as  individuals,  I  feel  great 
respect  and  regard.  I  honor  them  for  their  talents  and  for  their 
piety.  With  not  a  few  of  them  I  have  lived  in  private  life  in 
habits  of  most  friendly  intercourse.  But  I  strongly  approve  of 
the  Principles  and  Law  of  the  Church.  I  consider  myself  bound 
by  her  authority,  having  given  my  assent  to  it  when  I  became 
one  of  her  ministers  j  and  in  my  official  capacity,  I  know  of  no 
ministry  outside  of  her  fold. 

DEAR  BRETHREN  :  I  close  as  I  began.  I  believe  that  every 
one  of  the  few  Clergy  who  may  think  themselves  touched  by  this 
present  appeal,  will  feel  assured  in  their  own  minds,  from  all  that 
they  have  seen  and  known  of  their  Bishop,  that  he  cherishes  for 
them  a  sincere  respect— a  most  affectionate  regard.  That  regard 
is  entirely  unchanged.  Praying  God  to  pour  out  his  best  bless- 
ings upon  the  Ministry  and  upon  the  Avhole  Church,  I  remain,  as 
ever,  your  faithful  Brother  in  Christ, 

HORATIO  POTTER, 

Bishop  of  New-  York. 
NEW- YORK,  May  19,  1865. 


LETTER 


TO 


RT.  REV.  HORATIO  POTTER,  D.D. 


BY 

STEPHEN    H.    TYNG. 


JOHN  A.  GRAY  &  GREEN,  PRINTERS,  16  &  18  JACOB  STREET. 

1865. 


Tins  personal  letter  to  the  Bishop  was  read  by  me  to  the  Clerical 
Association  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  as  having  a  common 
interest  in  its  subject,  and  as  suitable  advisers  to  myself  in  its  trans- 
mission. At  their  request,  it  has  been  printed,  for  their  use  and  subject 
to  their  distribution,  according  to  the  vote  unanimously  passed  at  their 
regular  meeting,  June  12,  1865. 


LETTER. 


To  tJie  Might  Reverend  Horatio  Potter,  D.D. 

RIGHT  REV.  AND  MY  DEAK  BISHOP  :  I  have  received  by  mail  a 
copy  of  a  printed  pamphlet  purporting  to  be  "  A  Pastoral  Letter," 
from  yourself  to  the  Clergy  of  the  Diocese  of  New- York.  It 
has  come  to  me  with  no  additional  means  of  identifying  its  au- 
thority, and  I  am  therefore  obliged  to  assume  the  realfty  of  its 
character. 

Canon  third,  section  ten,  prescribes  that  "  every  Bishop  shall 
deliver  a  charge  to  the  Clergy  of  his  Diocese,"  and  "shall 
addressee  the  people  of  his  Diocese,  Pastoral  Letters."  As  all 
the  duties  of  the  Episcopal  office  are  defined  by  law,  I  am  re- 
quired further  to  assume,  that  this  letter  is  not  intended  as  an 
official  Episcopal  document,  but  as  a  personal  communication  ad- 
dressed by  you,  for  your  own  convenience  in  the  form  of  a  circu- 
lar, to  the  clergy  of  the  Diocese.  As  such  I  receive  it  with  great 
respect.  In  a  regular  canonical  address  from  a  Bishop  within  his 
own  jurisdiction,  to  those  subject  to  his  appointed  oversight,  I 
acknowledge  a  positive  authority  which  would  render  queltion- 
able  the  right  of  criticism  or  reply. 

But  an  address  which  is  extra-canonical  becomes  merely  per- 
sonal and  didactic,  and  not  only  permits,  but  seems  also  to  in- 
vite individual  conference  and  response.  I  hope,  therefore,  that 
I  shall  not  be  considered  as  deficient  in  due  respect  for  my  truly 
loved  Bishop  if  in  the  frankness  of  affectionate  freedom  I  offer 
such  a  reply. 

I  am  not  moved  to  this,  because  I  feel  myself  to  be  one  of 
those  clergymen  whom  you  describe  "as  conscious  to  them- 
selves,  that  there  has  been  something  in  their  official  proceedings, 
which  may  have  had  some  influence  in  suggesting  the  propriety 


and  even  necessity  of  these  present  observations."  I  feel  com- 
pelled in  honesty  to  say  at  the  outset  that  I  could  not  concede 
their  propriety  or  necessity,  as  addressed  to  any  of  the  clergy 
within  my  knowledge. 

I  am  not  incited  by  a  desire  in  any  way  to  assume  an  attitude 
or  aspect,  which  shall  even  appear  antagonistic  to  your  judgment 
in  the  ecclesiastical  administration  which  has  been  committed  to 
you,  and  the  great  responsibility  of  which  you  bear.  I  trust 
that  my  whole  life  in  the  Church  has  shown  me  to  be  in  no  re- 
lation factious,  or  fond  of  dissension.  I  gladly  reciprocate  the 
assurances  which  your  letter  contains  of  personal  kindness  and 
respect,  in  the  most  unqualified  terms. 

I  most  gratefully  bear  witness  that  your  administration  of  the 
Diocese  has  never  been  exposed,  within  my  observation,  to  the 
charge  of  "  any  disposition  on  your  part,  to  impose  needless  re- 
straints upon  the  official  conduct  of  the  clergy,  or  to  interfere,  in 
any  way,  with  their  freedom  of  action."  I  have  often  thought, 
and  have  often  testified,  of  the  wisdom  which  has  thus  character- 
ized your  Episcopal  action.  And  on  that  very  account  I  do  the 
more  earnestly  regret  this  new  and  most  dissimilar  step,  which  I 
cannot  but  think  will  prove  a  very  sad  and  painful  diversion  from 
your  long-continued  and  prospered  course. 

My  dear  Bishop,  it  was  my  privilege  to  give,  and  with  great 
cordiality,  my  personal  and  parish  votes  for  your  election  to  the 
high  office  which  you  have  so  worthily  and  purely  filled.  And 
my  whole  experience  of  your  administration  has  tended  to  satisfy 
me  with  the  act  then  consummated,  and  to  please  me  with  the 
gentleness  and  impartiality  of  your  subsequent  career.  I  have 
had  no  complaint  to  make,  no  censure  to  express,  no  fault  to  find. 
And  I  feel  myself  the  more  able,  on  this  occasion,  to  speak  with 
freedom,  because  I  have  an  unbroken  consciousness  of  my  sincere 
affection  for  you,  and  an  equal  confidence  in  your  true  and  gen- 
erous desire,  in  every  thing,  to  promote  the  welfare  of  the  Church, 
and  the  prosperity  and  happiness  of  the  clergy  over  whom  you 
have  been  placed  in  the  Lord. 

The  occasion  which  has  called  for  this  response  from  me,  I  can- 
not but  esteem  a  very  trying,  and  to  me  a  very  painful  one.  I 
fear  it  will  tend  to  array  against  yourself  the  feelings  and  judg- 
ments of  many  of  the  clergy,  whose  support  of  you,  and  respect 
for  you,  have  been  most  cordial  and  entire,  and  whose  fraternal 
confidence  must  always  be  a  fact  of  great  value  in  your  Episcopal 
relations.  It  opposes  with  admonitions,  perhaps  with  threats,  of 


needless  severity,  a  general  tendency  and  spirit  of  our  time, 
which  is  not  only  in  itself  harmless  and  entirely  tolerable,  but 
is,  in  its  purpose  and  desire,  manifestly  in  the  line  of  divine  truth 
and  example,  adapted  to  edify  rather  than  destroy  the  best  in- 
terests of  the  Gospel  and  the  Church  of  God.  It  throws  your 
influence  and  yourself  on  the  side  of  an  exclusiveness  of  partisan 
judgment  and  action,  which  I  am  sure  is  not  the  spirit  of  the 
New  Testament ;  which  can  never  be  acceptable  or  welcomed 
in  the  Christianity  of  our  land ;  and  which,  in  its  relations  to  our 
own  Church,  can  only  tend,  as  it  has  always  tended,  to  retard  its 
growth,  to  limit  its  influence,  to  discredit  its  character,  and  make 
it  unpopular  and  repulsive  in  the  apprehension  of  the  people 
whom  it  seeks  to  gather  and  to  bless. 

And  all  this  is  to  be  done  and  borne,  avowedly  to  meet  sup- 
posed difficulties,  which  in  your  own  view  are  so  temporary  and 
evanescent,  that  you  say  of  them,  (p.  12,)  "  These  .movements  will 
speedily  come  to  nothing,"  and  (p.  15)  "  will  be  limited  to  a  very 
narrow  circle,"  "  will  be  impotent  and  fugitive,  as  every  thing 
must  be  impotent  and  fugitive,  which  is  in  the  nature  of  a  de- 
parture from  a  polity  so  reasonable  and  so  well  settled  as  ours." 

My  dear  Bishop,  perhaps  Gamaliel  would  have  counselled  in 
such  a  case,  that  it  would  the  part  of  a  cautious  and  wise  govern- 
ment to  "  refrain  from  these  men  and  let  them  alone ;"  especially 
so,  if  your  anticipations  should  be  correct,  that  in  attempting  to 
"  overthrow "  them,  "  the  Bishop  himself  will  not  escape  the 
special  outbreak  of  odium  and  censure,"  nor  avoid  "  exposing 
himself  to  hard  thoughts  from  within  the  Church,  and  to  bitter 
denunciations  from  without."  I  most  sincerely  hope  that  neither 
of  these  painful  results  will  occur. 

Indeed,  I  greatly  doubt  their  occurrence,  for  however  the 
clergymen  whose  course  of  ministry  has  thus  been  made  the 
subject  of  your  very  serious  reprehension,  may  be,  and  often 
have  been,  the  objects  of  reproach  and  censure,  as  violating  law, 
when  in  the  mere  exercise  of  their  indubitable  liberty,  I  have  not 
been  accustomed  to  hear  from  them  the  language  of  bitterness 
in  return.  They  are  the  very  men  who  have  always  sought  for 
peace,  and  have  made  peace  in  the  Church,  in  the  whole  field 
of  my  observation,  whose  conduct  in  the  ministry  is  held  up  to 
such  grievous  censure,  in  the  language  *of  your  letter.  To 
secure  the  peace  of  the  Church,  and  because  they  believed 
that  your  administration  would  promote  this  peace,  they  cor- 
dially united  in  your  election ;  and  in  the  accomplishment  of 


6 

that  result,  which  could  only  have  been  accomplished  by  their 
united  fidelity  to  you  as  their  choice,  through  intense  opposition 
from  the  dominant  party  in  the  Diocese,  and  by  a  long  protract- 
ed canvass  of  votes,  they  secured  the  issue  of  a  united  Church 
and  a  satisfied  people.  To  your  administration  they  have  given 
an  unshrinking  and  unqualified  support ;  nor  have  you  ever 
found  them  arrayed  among  your  opposers,  or  caballing  for 
schemes  of  division  or  irregular  influence  to  annoy  or  resist  you. 

My  dear  Bishop,  you  say  that  you  have  "  been  again  and  again 
appealed  to  by  both  clergymen  and  laymen,  (who  are  not  apt  to 
be  busy-bodies  or  censorious,)  to  do  something  to  check  the 
evil "  which  you  censure.  Of  course  I  have  no  means  to  iden- 
tify these  individual  persons.  I  am  not  surprised  at  the  caution 
of  your  parenthesis  in  speaking  of  them,  for  in  some  cases 
known  to  me,  I  should  have  called  them  excessively  both  busy- 
bodies  and  censorious.  In  those  cases,  I  was  gratefully  impress- 
ed with  the  wisdom  which  declined  to  be  harnessed  to  the  wheels 
of  persons  of  their  habit  and  propensity.  I  have  but  little  doubt 
that,  among  these  "  clergymen  and  laymen  "  referred  to,  there 
would  not  be  found  a  single  person,  who  cordially  gave  his  vote 
for  your  election.  On  the  other  hand,  I  am  aware  of  some,  who 
have  urged  you  to  your  new  relation  to  the  clergymen  now  ar- 
rayed for  censure,  who  set  themselves,  at  the  time  of  that  elec- 
tion, with  united  purpose  and  determination  to  defeat  it,  that 
they  might  place  the  government  of  the  Church  in  other  hands, 
more  likely  to  rule  according  to  their  will. 

They  were  defeated  in  their  attempts  to  prevent  your  accession 
to  the  Episcopal  office ;  but  they  have  not  hesitated  to  censure 
your  administration ;  in  the  convention  to  thwart  your  wishes ;  in 
private  in  no  way  to  advance  your  influence  ;  and  they  now  com- 
bine to  separate  you  from  the  real  friends  and  supporters  of  your 
important  ministry ;  to  array  you  in  apparent  hostility  to  them, 
and  thus  to  break  up  the  peace  of  the  Church,  the  quietness  of 
your  own  Episcopate,  and  your  confidence  in  those  who  have 
most  truly  loved  and  upheld  you.  I  must  be  permitted  to  speak 
of  this  whole  development,  as  a  most  painful  result  in  the  in- 
fluence which  it  is  likely  to  exercise  over  the  future  welfare  of 
our  Church  and  of  this  Diocese. 

My  dear  Bishop,  had  these  interfering  "  clergymen  and  lay- 
men "  left  you  free  from  their  impertinent  control,  and  had  you 
addressed  "  a  charge  to  your  clergy  "  of  your  own  monition,  how- 
ever I  might  not  have  agreed  with  you  in  sentiment,  I  should 


have  suffered  in  silence.  But  when  your  serious  censure,  and,  as 
I  think,  needless  and  unwarrantable  censure,  of  a  large  portion  of 
your  clergy,  and  that  the  portion  the  most  habitually  friendly 
and  loving  toward  yourself,  is  avowedly  upon  the  ground  of  the 
repeated  appeals  of  "  clergymen  and  laymen,"  combining  to  "  se- 
parate chief  friends,"  I  must  frankly  s'ay  that  I  cannot  acknow- 
ledge the  wisdom  of  the  course,  the  justice  of  the  proceeding, 
or  the  expediency  either  of  the  time,  or  method  selected  for  their 
gratification.  And  I  feel  compelled  from  my  age  and  relation 
to  do  what  I  can  to  vindicate  myself,  to  guide  and  protect  my 
younger  brethren,  and  to  maintain  the  long-accredited  and  ac- 
knowledged liberty  of  the  Church,  thus  unexpectedly  restricted 
and  refused. 

The  practical  character  of  your  letter  in  its  inevitable  conclu- 
sions, involves  the  most  serious  charge  against  a  large  portion  of 
the  clergy  under  your  oversight  which  can  be  made  against  in- 
telligent men.    It  is  simply  the  charge  of  a  life  of  deliberate  and 
conscious  perjury.     You  remind  them  (page  4)  that  when  they 
became  the  ministers  of  the  Church  in  which  they  serve,  they 
"  bound  themselves,  with  all  the  solemnities  of  an  oath,"  to  a 
line  of  conformity  which  they  have  systematically  refused.     You 
accuse  them  of  doing  this  in  a  trifling  and   irreverent   spirit, 
(page  12,)  when  you  speak  of  their  course  as  a   "  violation  of 
engagements  generally  deemed  sacred."     I  do  not  see  how  in  re- 
spectful terms  you  could  intensify  the  solemnity  of  this  charge. 
To  me  it  is  my  Bishop's  description  of  my  forty-four  years'  pas- 
toral ministry,  in  the  Church  in  which  I  was  born,  from  a  family 
never  out  of  this  Church,  and  from  whose  fold  I  shall  never  volun- 
tarily stray. 

That  I  should  silently  rest  under  the  charge  of  a  life  of  perjury 
could  not  be  expected.  That  my  Bishop,  with  whom  I  have 
never  taken  any  but  "sweet  counsel,"  should  have  made  it, 
would  have  been  to  me  incredible  had  I  not  thus  been  com- 
pelled to  meet  it.  That  I  should  shrink  in  silence  under  it,  and 
go  down  to  that  grave  which  is  now  so  near  me,  practically  ac- 
knowledging it,  is  utterly  impossible.  That  I  should  take  any 
other  than  a  frank,  open,  and  personal  notice  of  it,  would  be 
equally  unbecoming  and  unlike  myself. 

I  therefore  address  you  personally,  as  I  should  always  desire, 
but  upon  a  stand  of  self-defence,  which  I  never  anticipated  as 
a  requisition  from  you.  I  cannot  address  you  with  disrespect, 
for  I  have  the  most  sincere  and  affectionate  respect  and  love  for 


yon.  But  I  feel  bound  to  declare  myself  in  my  whole  ministry 
open  to  nil  the  imputations  of  your  letter.  I  deem  the  things 
complained  of  a  personal  liberty  which  Christ  has  given  to  me, 
and  which  the  Church  has  never  taken  away;  and  though  I 
should  freely  say  of  some  of  the  illustrations  wfhich  you  have 
introduced,  that  I  did  not  deem  them  expedient,  I  cannot  say  of 
any  of  them  that  I  think  them  unlawful,  still  less  that  I  can  es- 
teem them  as  the  open  career  of  perjury. 

My  dear  Bishop,  there  is  nothing  new  to  me  in  the  subject  of 
your  letter.  It  is  a  ground  which  I  have  been  compelled  frequent- 
ly to  traverse.  But  I  confess  with  sorrow  that  the  stand  which 
you  take  in  regard  to  it  is  new,  and  to  me  wholly  unexpected. 
I  see  no  path  to  a  result  of  peace,  if  it  is  your  purpose  to  main- 
tain it  as  a  stand  of  authority,  but  the  alternative  of  an  excision 
of  all  who  have  been  thus  guilty  from  the  Church  ;  or  their  re- 
nunciation of  the  principles  and  practices  of  a  life,  as  a  submission 
to  that  which  they  must  esteem  an  extra-official  authority.  The 
one  would  drive  the  persons  from  the  Church ;  the  other  would 
banish  the  manhood  from  the  persons. 

There  are  three  views  under  which  the  charges  and  the  de- 
mands of  your  letter  present  themselves  to  my  consideration. 
First.  In  their  own  history.  Second.  In  my  personal  history  as 
connected  with  them.  Third.  In  the  merits  of  the  claims  in 
themselves. 

There  is,  First,  The  history  of  the  claims  which  are  pressed 
in  your  letter  as  a  scheme  of  facts.  They  constitute  that  which 
has  always  been  known  as  the  High  Church  scheme  in  the  later 
years  of  our  Church.  The  two  main  facts  habitually  designated 
and  opposed  by  this  scheme,  as  practised  and  encouraged  in  our 
Church,  have  been  the  use  of  extemporaneous  prayer,  and  the 
union  with  other  denominations  of  Christians  in  religious  wor- 
ship. 

The  controversy  concerning  these  things  in  our  Church,  has 
been  wholly  within  the  line  and  field  of  my  own  personal  obser- 
vation, and  in  all  its  leading  facts  thoroughly  known  to  me,  in 
that  observation.  In  the  earlier  years  of  our  Church  histoiy, 
there  was  no  discussion  or  discrepancy  upon  this  subject.  Not 
one  of  our  earlier  bishops,  from  the  English  consecration,  assum- 
ed this  High  Church  ground.  Neither  White,  nor  Madison,  nor 
Bass,  nor,  so  far  as  I  have  known  or  heard,  Provost  or  Moore, 
professed  to  stand  upon  that  platform.  The  open  and  earnest 
vindication  of  the  scheme  began  with  Bishop  Hobart,  who  was 


9 

consecrated  in  1811.  It  was  commenced  by  him  mainly  in 
reference  to  the  formation  of  the  American  Bible  Society  in  1816. 
The  first  knowledge  publicly  given  to  the  Church  of  this  scheme 
as  such,  was  in  Bishop  Hobart's  celebrated  charge  to  the  Conven- 
tions of  New- York  and  Connecticut,  entitled,  "  The  High  Church- 
man Vindicated."  The  principles  of  the  scheme  were  expanded 
and  applied  in  Bishop  Hobart's  controversy  with  Judge  Jay  upon 
the  Bible  Society,  and  with  Dr.  Miller  and  Dr.  Mason  upon  the 
Claims  of  Episcopacy. 

From  Bishop  Hobart,  this  scheme  became  a  formal  system,  the 
practical  influence  and  operation  of  which  were  afterward  found 
in  every  diocese,  and  came  in  a  degree  to  be  a  ruling  power  in 
many.  Prayer-meetings,  private  informal  lectures,  revivals  of  re- 
ligion, union  .societies  of  all  kinds  for  religious  objects,  all  ac- 
knowledgment of  the  ministry,  or  of  the  right  to  minister  in 
other  churches  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  not  episcopally  constituted, 
were  the  objects  of  special  hostility  and  assault, 

Bishop  Griswold,  who  was  consecrated  at  the  same  time  with 
Bishop  Hobart,  and  Bishop  Moore  of  Virginia,  were  as  steadfast 
and  earnest  in  their  opposition  to  this  scheme  of  exclusion  and 
discrimination,  as  Bishop  Hobart  was  in  favor  of  it.  Bishop 
White,  who  was  personally  friendly  to  each,  and  a  lover  of  all 
good  men,  was  eminently  moderate  in  his  utterances,  but  never, 
in  his  teachings  or  his  conduct,  sanctioned  the  claims  of  the  High 
Church  scheme.  Dr.  Milnor,  in  New- York,  the  particular  per- 
sonal friend  and  the  parishioner  of  Bish.rp  White,  was  a  zealous 
and  uncompromising  antagonist  to  it.  The  younger  clergy  di- 
vided under  these  leaders  according  to  their  connections  or  af- 
finities. 

The  warfare  for  this  excluding  scheme,  and  the  warfare  against 
it,  made  the  history  of  our  Church  during  the  lifetime  of  Bishop 
Hobart.  Sinxje  his  death,  though  on  each  side  the  dividing  prin- 
ciples have  remained,  the  controversy,  as  a  general  fact,  has  been 
withdrawn,  and  the  whole  Church  has  settled  down  into  an  ac- 
knowledgment of  the  "  liberty  of  prophesying,"  involved  in  the 
previous  discussion. 

When  this  High  Church  scheme  found  as  its  outgrowth,  the 
vagai-ies  of  the  Oxford  illumination,  and  claimed  the  toleration 
of  them,  it  couhi  no  longer  denounce  or  threaten  what  it  still 
deemed  the  errors  of  the  "  Evangelical "  scheme.  Mutual  con- 
sent has  given  us  mutual  peace.  I  hoped  it  would  be  acknow- 
ledged that  "  God  had  given  peace  in  our  time."  I  least  of  all 


10 

expected,  my  good  Bishop,  that  one  so  mild  in  temper  and  mode- 
rate in  government  as  yourself,  should  again  awake  the  'spirit  of 
controversy ;  or  that  one  so  self-controlled  and  wise  should  have 
suffered  himself  to  yield  to  the  "  appeals  "  of  "  clergymen  and 
laymen"  to  rebuke  those  who  were  truly  prophesying  in  the 
Lord's  name,  or  to  condemn  those  whom  the  Lord  hath  not  con- 
demned. 

The  coming  history  can  only  be  a  repetition  of  the  past.  We 
can  never  concede  the  exclusive  interpretation  which  your  letter 
appears  to  claim  for  alleged  law  upon  this  subject.  The  forcing  of 
your  views,  as  you  seem  to  intimate  by  the  capital  letters  on  your 
eighth  page,  can  only  result  in  dividing  the  Church,  destroying 
much  fruit  of  the  ministry  therein,  driving  valuable  ministers 
therefrom,  or  constraining  into  a  selfish  hypocrisy  for  bread, 
those  whom  power  may  have  the  opportunity  to  oppress,  and 
whose  earthly  condition  is  without  a  comforter.  That  any  cir- 
cumstances shall  be  found  sufficiently  constraining  to  lead  you  to 
this  course,  or  that  any  courts  shah1  be  found  sufficiently  partisan 
and  blind  to  sustain  such  a  system  of  wholesale  excision  from 
the  Church,  I  can  only  believe,  when  the  facts  shall  give  their  in- 
dubitable demonstration. 

You  will  pardon  me  for  this  freedom  of  speech.  But  Bishop 
Hobart  was  never  willing  to  carry  out  the  practical  logic  of  his 
principles,  though  he  openly  threatened  to  bring  them  to  their 
test,  in  preventing  Bishop  Meade's  consecration  ;  and  Bishop  Ra- 
venscroft  urged  him  to  exercise  them  in  the  punishment  of  Dr. 
Milnor. 

We  can  only  say  now,  what  we  have  been  compelled  always  to 
say :  Superior  power  can  have  our  places,  but  no  earthly  power 
can  have  our  principles. 

We  are  perfectly  willing  that  this  High  Church  scheme  should 
be  assumed,  pressed,  vindicated,  by  individual  opinions  among 
the  clergy  and  laity  as  they  please.  But  we  shall  protest,  as  we 
have  always  protested,  against  its  inauguration  as  a  principle  of 
government  by  our  bishops.  The  liberty  which  we  have  enjoyed, 
we  claim  as  our  inherited  and  indubitable  right.  And  while  we 
truly  love  you  as  our  Bishop,  we  cannot  concede,  even  to  your 
wish,  that  which  is  to  us  a  dear  and  valued  principle  of  the  doc- 
trine of  Christ. 

The  Second  view  which  I  desire  to  take  of  this  subject,  is  my 
own  personal  history  in  connection  with  it.  It  is  my  own  minis- 
try which  I  am  called  to  defend.  That  ministry  has  been  un- 


11 

changed  in  its  principles  from  its  commencement.  I  -was  born 
and  educated  in  the  Episcopal  Church.  But  these  High  Church 
principles  I  never  heard,  or  heard  of,  in  my  youth.  So  far  as  I 
know,  they  were  introduced  into  Boston  and  Massachusetts  by  Dr. 
Jarvis,  who  came  to  Boston  in  1820.  Bishop  Bass  and  Bishop 
Parker  had  been  of  the  old  moderate  stamp  of  Churchmanship. 
Bishop  Griswold,  who  succeeded  them  in  1811,  added  to  their 
conservative  quietness  and  impartiality,  a  vigorous  and  faithful 
preaching  of  the  Gospel,  to  which  we  were  in  a  great  degree 
strangers  before. 

In  his  retired  parish  in  Bristol,  Rhode  Island,  Bishop  Gris- 
wold's  ministry  had  been  very  remarkably  blessed  with  revivals 
of  religion.  His  people  were  much  accustomed  to  conference 
meetings,  prayer-meetings,  and  familiar  lectures,  in  all  of  which 
the  Bishop  greatly  delighted  and  excelled.  In  these  meetings, 
though  they  were  always  opened  with  a  short  selection  from  the 
Prayer-Book,  the  privileges  of  extemporaneous  prayer,  and  of  lay 
exhortation  in  a  variety  of  forms,  were  freely  and  habitually 
adopted  by  the  people,  in  the  presence  and  with  the  approval  of 
the  Bishop.  The  first  public  display  of  the  High  Church  scheme 
was  in  a  series  of  attacks  in  The  Gospel  Advocate,  a  periodical 
established  by  Dr.  Jarvis  in  Boston,  which  were  written  by  him. 
The  Bishop  defended  himself  in  some  essays,  the  publication  of 
which  was  refused  in  The  Gospel  Advocate,  but  which  were  after- 
wards published  in  a  Tract  on  Prayer-Meetings. 

This  struggle  to  establish  the  High  Church  scheme  in  Massa- 
chusetts was  ineffectual  at  that  time.  I  am  thankful  to  say,  it 
has  never  succeeded  since.  The  successors  of  Dr.  Jarvis  in  St. 
Paul's  have  been  advocates  of  a  very  different  system  from  his. 

By  Bishop  Griswold  I  was  prepared  for  my  ministry.  I  was 
instructed  by  him  in  the  system  of  faithful  ministration  which  he 
practised,  and  which  I  have  endeavored  faithfully  to  maintain. 
The  Prayer-Book  and  the  Canons  generally,  were  the  same  then 
as  now.  If  my  life  has  been  a  life  of  perjury,  so  was  the  life  of 
Bishop  Griswold.  In  the  free  use  of  extemporaneous  prayer  on 
all  other  occasions  than  the  regular  public  worship  of  the  Church, 
in  preaching  without  restraint  wherever  he  was  invited  to 
preach,  in  invitations  to  ministers  of  other  churches  to  preach  in 
his  church,  in  a  free  and  friendly  union  in  religious  exercises 
with  all  who  loved  the  Lord  Jesus,  Bishop  Griswold  set  me  the 
example,  and  gave  me  my  direction.  I  adopted  his  system  of  niin- 


12 

istry,  and  I  have  endeavored  to  carry  it  out  in  all  my  subsequent 
career. 

Forty-four  years  ago,  I  commenced  my  ministry  in  the  District 
of  Columbia,  Diocese  of  Maryland.  Then  I  came  under  a  High 
Church  Bishop,  who  had  himself  been  brought  in  from  the  Scotch 
Presbyterian  Church.  Bishop  Kemp  was  a  good  man.  But  he 
idolized  Bishop  Hobart  and  the  New-York  scheme.  In  this  he 
was  an  entire  contrast  to  his  predecessor,  Bishop  Claggett.  My 
opening  ministry  in  Maryland  was  distinguished  by  a  letter  from 
Bishop  Kemp,  whom  I  had  never  seen,  on  this  subject.  It  was 
enough  for  him,  that  I  had  come  from  Bishop  Griswold.  This 
was  the  beginning  of  a  warfare  for  years,  around  the  same  great 
principles  of  contest  which  distinguish  your  letter.  They  were 
principles  which  we  could  not  relinquish.  We  were  made  able  then 
to  vindicate  and  maintain  our  freedom.  With  the  Rev.  brethren 
Henshaw,  Johns,  Mcllvaine,  and  Hawley,  and  many  others  of 
similar  character,  I  was  called  to  stand  in  defence  of  the  Gospel 
in  its  doctrines  and  its  liberty.  It  was  my  first  encounter  with 
this  High  Church  scheme,  which,  in  my  unhesitating  judgment, 
then  and  now,  wars  with  both.  This  contest  taught  me  tho- 
roughly its  character,  its  spirit,  its  tendency,  and  its  result. 
That  controversy  passed  by,  I  am  grateful  to  say,  without  com- 
promising our  liberty,  or  violating  in  the  end  our  kind  and  friend- 
ly relations  with  Bishop  Kemp ;  and  the  later  years  of  my  minis- 
try in  Maryland,  though  unchanged  in  principle  and  habit,  were 
passed  in  peace. 

Thirty-six  years  ago  I  was  called  to  the  city  of  Philadelphia, 
in  the  midst  of  a  large  population  of  our  Church  with  whom  I 
sympathized  entirely.  This  exclusive  system  had  never  ruled  in 
Pennsylvania.  I  was  received  with  a  patei'nal  kindness  by  Bishop 
White,  which  I  can  never  forget.  To  him  I  submitted  personally 
the  very  questions  which  are  now  discussed  :  Shall  I  accept  invi- 
tations to  preach  in  churches  which  are  not  Episcopal  ?  In  what 
way  shall  I  use  our  forms  of  prayer  on  such  occasions  ?  Preach 
for  all  who  invite  you,  if  you  can  and  desire  to  do  it.  Employ 
the  Prayer-Book  as  much  as  you  can  usefully  and  consistently 
with  their  habits ;  was  the  substance  of  his  replies.  Thus  I  did 
probably  in  more  than  fifty  cases  in  the  Diocese  of  Pennsylvania. 

Bishop  White  was  the  President  of  the  Pennsylvania  Bible  So- 
ciety, as  well  as  of  some  other  union  societies.  I  have  often  at- 
tended these  meetings  with  him.  I  have  heard  him  invite  min- 
isters of  other  denominations  to  pray,  and  to  address  the  congre- 


13 

gations  assembled.  They  preached  the  Gospel  in  his  presence 
and  under  his  sanction.  He  was  acknowledged  and  received  not 
merely  as  the  Bishop  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  but,  as  Dr.  Sharp 
in  Boston  said  of  Bishop  Griswold,  "  as  the  father  of  us  all." 
My  ministry  in  Philadelphia  encountered  much  opposition  and 
complaint  from  some  of  the  High  Church  portion  of  the  Church. 
But  from  its  commencement,  to  his  death,  Bishop  White  Avas  my 
steadfast  and  unyielding  friend.  He  was  in  the  habit  of  coming 
to  my  church  on  Sunday  evenings  with  great  frequency,  to  man- 
ifest the  spirit  with  which  he  stood  by  me  in  the  very  course 
which  others  opposed  and  censured. 

Bishop  Henry  Onderdonk  succeeded  him  in  the  Episcopate, 
not  only  in  fact,  but  in  principles  of  government.  The  Church 
has  had  few  wiser  or  more  moderate  rulers  than  he.  Complaints 
were  made  to  him  of  certain  facts  in  my  ministry,  particularly 
of  the  giving  the  use  of  my  church  for  the  meetings  of  union 
societies  and  promiscuous  prayer-meetings.  But  he  constantly 
refused  to  entertain  them,  or  to  interfere  in  any  way  with  what 
he  deemed  the  liberty  of  the .  ministry.  He  answered  on  one 
memorable  occasion,  that  the  fault  was  not  in  doing  these  things, 
but  in  making  a  disturbance  about  them.  Instances  of  this  kind 
of  ministration  I  need  not  detail. 

This  was  my  experience  in  Philadelphia.  I  am  thankful  to 
know  that  Pennsylvania  has  met  with  no  change  in  this  relation. 
In  the  eminent  Bishops  who  preside  over  that  Church,  the  prin- 
ciples and  practices  of  Bishop  White  are  still  maintained,  and  the 
great  body  of  the  churches  and  of  the  clergy  are  conformed  to 
them.  Bishop  White  was  not  in  the  habit  of  making  extempora- 
neous prayers  ;  but  he  frequently,  perhaps  habitually,  wrote  the 
prayer  after  his  sermon,  and  on  many  occasions  defined  and  de- 
fended this  habit,  as  the  liberty  which  was  secured  to  the  ministry 
by  the  Canon. 

My  dear  Bishop,  I  have  now  been  twenty  years  in  the  Diocese 
of  New- York.  In  Bishop  Wainwright,  my  first  Bishop  here,  I 
found  the  friend  of  my  youth,  whose  moderation  and  wisdom 
shone  as  the  preeminent  qualities  of  his  short  Episcopate.  These 
ten  years  past,  I  have  been  happy  in  the  tranquillity  and  consid- 
eration of  your  government  in  the  same  spirit.  I  have  supposed 
that  the  days  of  Church  warfare  were  over,  at  least  for  me.  I 
fondly  believed  that  in  the  advancing  liberality,  good  sense,  and 
civilization  of  the  country  and  the  age,  the  elements  of  ecclesias- 
tical discord  were  so  well  understood  and  so  justly  weighed,  that 


14 

we  might  be  permitted  hereafter  to  work  in  our  own  way,  in  mu- 
tual toleration  and  forbearance,  to  edify  the  great  cause  of  our 
common  Lord,  and  to  edify  <the  Church  we  love.  I  truly  regret 
my  disappointment,  as  much  for  the  sake  of  others  as  for  my  own. 
I  cannot  but  feel  and  think,  if  the  principles  and  practices  of 
my  ministry,  so  much  prolonged,  and  so  publicly  known,  have 
borne  or  deserved  to  bear  the  imputation  and  character  from 
which  I  am  now  compelled  to  defend  them,  a  watchful  Episcopate 
should  long  since  have  visited  me  with  a  proper  penalty. 

But,  my  good  Bishop,  you  have  visited  my  church,  and  my 
chapels.  You  have  confirmed  more  than  five  hundred  new  candi- 
dates for  Christian  fellowship  under  my  ministry.  You  have  ad- 
dressed my  people  in  words  far  too  flattering  for  me,  unreserved- 
ly commending  my  work  and  my  ministry  to  them.  %And  you  have 
never,  to  me  or  to  my  people,  uttered  the  warning  which  fidel- 
ity in  duty  certainly  required,  against  a  ministry  which  you  have 
now  felt  compelled  to  characterize  by  terms  of  such  severity. 
You  came  again  and  again,  according  to  the  canon,  in  your  official 
visitations,  to  "inspect  the  behavior  of  your  clergy,"  and  you 
have  ministered  to  me  or  my  people  no  reproof.  I  had  learned 
from  you  to  expect  none.  I  have  been  led,  in  my  confidence  in 
your  feelings  and  purposes,  to  say  and  to  hope  that  I  should  go 
down  to  my  grave  in  peace,  "  my  people  blessing,  by  my  people 
blest,"  when,  most  unexpectedly,  I  find  my  whole  course  publicly 
arraigned  and  condemned,  untried  and  unheard,  in  a  way  which 
must  result,  in  your  own  language,  "  not  in  augmented  tendency 
to  union  and  harmony,  but  an  unusual  rising  up  of  disturbance 
and  division." 

I  am  compelled  to  look  back  upon  my  whole  career  and  say  : 
Neither  the  spotless  Griswold,  nor  the  patriarchal  "White,  nor  the 
intelligent  and  logical  Onderdonk,  nor  the  generous  and  open- 
hearted  Wainwright,  ever  denounced  or  reproved  me;  but  justi- 
fied and  encouraged  me  with  paternal  and  brotherly  support.  If 
I  have  been  wrong  in  my  principles  or  conduct,  they  were  emi- 
nently so.  If  they  have  been  just,  and  to  be  justified,  then  have 
the  principles  of  my  ministry  been  canonical  and  correct ;  and  I 
have  "  ministered  the  discipline  of  Christ  as  this  Church  hath 
received  the  same."  You  leave  me  no  other  recourse  in  earthly 
determination,  than  to  throw  myself  back  on  this  whole  com- 
plete career  of  ministry,  and  to  avo\v  its  rectitude,  in  the  theo- 
ries of  its  guidance,  and  in  the  facts  which  have  distinguished  it ; 
and  to  commit  myself  for  the  future  to  my  Master  and  His  Church, 


15 

while  I  say,  humbly  but  solemnly,  I  can  do  no  otherwise  in  time 
to  come. 

The  personal  aspect  of  this  response  to  your  letter,  my  dear 
Bishop,  I  greatly  regret ;  but  you  have  compelled  me.  And  I 
now  turn  to  consider  the  Third  view  which  I  proposed  to  take  of 
the  subject,  in  its  own  merits.  In  doing  this,  I  will  respectfully 
follow  the  course  of  your  own  selection,  of  what  you  describe  as 
"  some  of  the  principles  and  laws  of  the  Church,  which  we  ac- 
cepted when  we  became  her  ministers,  and  which,  with  all  the 
solemnities  of  an  oath,  we  bound  ourselves  to  observe."  (Page  4.) 

I  have  no  objection  to  make  to  your  selections,  and  willingly 
consider  them  all  with  you.  But  in  this  consideration  of  the  se- 
lected passages  from  the  Prayer-Book  and  the  Canons,  I  must  be 
permitted  to  remark,  that  the  whole  discussion  is  upon  the  particu- 
lar interpretation  to  be  given  to  the  selected  expressions  adduced. 
Your  letter  assumes  an  interpretation  entirely  peculiar,  the  histo- 
ry of  which  I  have  already  exhibited,  as  if  this  interpretation  were 
the  undoubted  meaning  of  the  law.  I  am  not  able  to  agree  with 
you  in  your  interpretation  of  the  language  presented,  and  cannot, 
therefore,  hold  myself  responsible  for  the  conclusions  which  you 
deduce  therefrom.  But  I  will  proceed  to  consider  your  selections 
under  their  enumerated  heads. 

I.  I  did  "  deliberately  write  and  pronounce  to  the  Bishop,  the 
emphatic  declaration,  '  I  do  believe  the  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments  to  be  the  Word  of  God,  and  to  contain  all 
things  necessary  to  salvation  ;  and  I  do  solemnly  engage  to  con- 
form to  the  doctrines  and  worship  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States.'  "  In  fulfilling  this  declaration,  I 
have  most  earnestly  endeavored  to  maintain  these  doctrines,  and 
to  conform  to  this  worship,  for  near  forty-five  years  of  ministry 
in  the  Church.  I  am  not  aware  that  in  any  single  instance  or 
fact,  I  have  ever  broken  this  solemn  engagement.  I  have  sin- 
cerely given  the  best  powers  of  my  mind,  and  all  the  energies  of 
my  life,  to  carry  out  this  declaration,  in  an  earnest,  practical  fidel- 
ity, the  history  and  the  proof  of  which  have  been  before  the  view 
of  the  Church.  For  the  facts  of  this  ministry,  I  ask  the  most  tho- 
rough examination,  as  they  have  passed  under  the  knowledge  of 
my  brethren,  and  in  the  midst  of  the  various  congregations  of  the 
people  of  Christ,  which  have  been  committed  to  me.  Of  my  la- 
bors in  teaching  and  edifying  the  people  of  my  charge,  in  the  doc- 
trines and  worship  prescribed,  appointed,  and  received  by  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  in  its  institutions,  observances,  dis- 


16 

tinctive  principles,  ordinances,  and  rites,  I  challenge,  before  the 
Great  Head  of  the  Church,  an  impartial  scrutiny  ;  being  persuad- 
ed that,  however  infirm  and  incompetent  in  many  things,  I  have 
never  been  a  hypocrite,  an  idler,  or  a  self-indulgent  and  perjured 
man,  in  the  house  of  God. 

This  solemn  declaration  and  engagement  I  did  not  subscribe 
with  the  added  special  interpretation  of  any  Bishop  ;  or,  if  of  any 
one,  then  certainly  that  of  Bishop  Griswold,  who  ordained  me. 
Still  less  did  I  agree  to  receive  as  law,  the  successive  Episcopal 
interpretations  of  the  doctrines  and  worship  which  I  adopted,  as 
I  might  remove  from  one  Diocese  to  another,  or  as  succeeding 
Bishops  might  be  placed  over  me  in  the  wise  providence  of  God  ; 
and  thus  to  make  the  Episcopal  opinion  in  reality  the  law  of  the 
Church.  The  Church  left  me,  and  commissioned  me,  to  read  these 
Doctrines  and  Law  for  myself.  The  Bishop  and  Presbyters  ap- 
pointed, examined  me  for  my  knowledge  in  the  premises.  And  I 
was  thenceforth  intrusted,  as  an  accepted  and  approved  minister 
in  the  Church  of  God,  to  be  myself,  and  for  myself,  the  judge  of 
my  conformity  to  the  doctrines,  and  worship,  and  the  law  of  the 
Church  ;  to  edify  the  Church  of  God,  and  to  serve  her  in  the  Gos- 
pel of  her  Lord,  not  in  the  mere  bondage  of  the  letter,  but  in  the 
intelligent  freeness  of  the  spirit ;  not  according  to  the  opinions, 
prejudices,  and  whims  of  others  around  me,  but  in  a  good  con- 
science before  God.  Thus  have  I  endeavored  faithfully  to  serve 
Christ  and  the  Church,  asking  direction  from  no  changing  human 
dictation,  but  from  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God,  and  from  my  own 
conscience  in  the  sight  of  God. 

II.  "  In  the  midst  of  the  service  of  ordination,  as  I  stood  before 
the  Bishop  and  before  the  Holy  Table,"  and  did  say,  "  I  will,  by 
the  help  of  the  Lord,  give  my  faithful  diligence  always  so  to  min- 
ister the  doctrines  and  sacraments,  and  the  discipline  of  Christ,  as 
the  Lord  hath  commanded,  and  as  this  Church  hath  received  the 
same,  according  to  the  commandments  of  God,  so  that  I  may  teach 
the  people  committed  to  my  care  and  charge,  with  all  diligence  to 
keep  and  observe  the  same."  I  have  honestly  and  faithfully  en- 
deavored to  do  this. 

But  this  High  Church  interpretation  of  doctrine,  sacraments, 
and  discipline,  this  Church  had  never  received ;  neither  had  the 
Lord  commanded  it,  in  any  information  then  given  to  me,  nor  in 
any  further  information  which  I  have  since  been  able  to  acquire. 
I  regard  it  as  a  new  doctrine,  "  unawares  brought  in,  to  spy  out 
our  liberty  which  we  have  in  Christ  Jesus,  and  to  bring  us  again 


17 

into  bondage,"  to  -which  I  must  say :  We  can  "  give  place  by  sub- 
jection, no,  not  for  an  hour,  that  the  truth  of  the  Gospel  may 
continue  "  in  the  Church. 

This  new  scheme  of  excluding  and  unchurching  all  "  non-Epis- 
copal divines,"  "  excluding  ministers  and  licentiates  of  non-Epis- 
copal bodies,  not  only  from  administering  the  sacraments,  but  also 
from  teaching  within  her  fold,  holding  them  to  be  "  incompetent," 
I  do  not  believe  "  the  Lord  hath  commanded,"  or  that  it  is  "  ac- 
cording to  the  commandment  of  God ;"  and  I  certainly  know  that 
"  this  Church  hath  not  received  the  same,"  but  has  rejected  it, 
and  resisted  it,  and  renounced  it,  always,  on  every  occasion  on 
which  individual  persons  in  the  Church  have  attempted  to  enforce 
it,  or  assume  it,  as  the  doctrine  and  teaching  of  the  Church. 

The  English  Church  at  the  Reformation  certainly  did  not  re- 
ceive it.  The  divines  of  the  Continental  Reformation  were  freely 
acknowledged,  consulted,  referred  to,  and  invited  to  teach  and 
minister  in  her  universities,  and  among  her  people.  Neither 
Cranmer,  nor  Parker,  nor  "Whitgift,  her  first  eminent  and  her 
abiding  authoritative  leaders,  taught  the  excluding  principles  of 
this  scheme.  Bancroft  was,  perhaps,  its  originator  in  the  English 
Church.  At  least,  I  have  not  been  able  to  find  a  trace  of  it  in  the 
authorities  of  the  English  Church  before  him. 

The  Church  of  England  did  not  receive  this  interpretation, 
when  she  sent  Hall  and  Davenant,  and  Carleton,  to  take 
counsel  with  the  Synod  of  Dort,  an  assembly  of  Presbyterian  di- 
vines, on  terms  of  perfect  equality  and  unrestricted  freedom. 

The  English  Church  did  not  receive  this  scheme,  when  the  So- 
ciety for  promoting  Christian  Knowledge,  the  very  Society  which 
has  been  always  counted  the  pattern  and  model  of  orthodoxy  in 
the  Church,  commissioned  Lutheran  ministers,  without  Episcopal 
ordination,  as  competent  to  be  the  missionaries  and  representa- 
tives of  this  Church,  in  the  introduction  of  the  Gospel  into  India. 

The  English  Church  did  not  receive  this  scheme  when,  subse- 
quently, the  Church  Missionary  Society  employed  similar  minis- 
ters and  missionaries  to  propagate  the  Gospel  in  Africa  and  the 
East. 

The  English  Church  has  never  received  this  scheme,  from  the 
Reformation  down  to  this  day.  Its  introduction  has  always  been 
opposed  and  contended  with,  as  a  novelty  which  the  Church  had 
never  received.  The  character  of  the  Archbishops  of  Canterbury 
m  the  whole  line  of  their  testimony  from  the  Reformation,  has 
been  the  solemn  witness  and  token  of  the  opposite  decision. 


18 

From  Cranmer  down  to  Sumner,  they  have  transmitted  no  such 
scheme  to  their  successors.  The  only  conspicuous  name  among 
them  adopting  the  scheme  is  the  ill-fated  Laud.  While  all  whose 
names  have  given  honor  to  their  station,  like  those  whom  I  have 
mentioned,  and  Wake,  and  Moore,  and  Tenison,  and  Tillotson, 
and  Seeker,  and  others  like  them,  have  presented  no  such  doctrine 
as  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  over  which  they  so  honorably  pre- 
sided. 

The  American  Church  did  not  receive  this  interpretation  in  her 
settlement  of  doctrine.  Her  opposing  stand  is  as  notorious  as  any 
fact  in  past  human  history.  In  the  preface  to  her  Prayer-Book, 
the  key  to  its  interpretation,  she  says  :  "  This  Church  is  far  from 
intending  to  depart  from  the  Church  of  England,  on  any  essential 
point  of  doctrine,  discipline,  or  worship,  or  further  than  local  cir- 
cumstances require."  Her  first  generation  of  Bishops  did  not 
adopt  it,  nor  transmit  it.  The  great  body  of  her  ministers  and 
people  never  have  adopted  it.  The  Church  in  the  Eastern  Dio- 
cese, comprising  the  five  New-England  States,  in  which  I  was  or* 
dained,  had  never  received  it.  It  was  never,  as  a  scheme  of  doc- 
trine, delivered  to  me.  I  have  not  received  it  in  the  Church,  or 
from  the  Church.  I  have  always  considered  it  as  among  the  "er- 
roneous and  strange  doctrines  contrary  to  God's  Word,"  which  I 
promised,  "  the  Lord  being  my  helper,"  "  with  all  faithful  dili- 
gence, to  banish  and  drive  away  from  the  Church."  And  I  have 
always  endeavored,  in  fulfilment  of  my  promise,  with  "  faithful 
diligence  always  to  minister  the  doctrines  and  sacraments,  and 
the  discipline  of  Christ,  as  the  Lord  hath  commanded,  and  as  this 
Church  hath  received  the  same,"  but  not  as  Archbishops  Bancroft 
or  Laud,  or  Bishop  Hobart,  have  assumed  to  be  its  infallible  inter- 
preters. 

III.  The  five  particulars  which  your  letter  presents  under  this 
third  head,  including  the  Preface  to  the  Ordinal,  and  the  four 
Canons  which  are  referred  to,  I  have  never  known  to  be  violated 
or  disregarded  in  the  Church.  The  ministers  who  have  "  officiat- 
ed in  its  congregations  "  have  been  al-ways  "  called,  tried,  and  ex- 
amined," so  far  as  I  know,  before  they  were  "  accounted  and 
taken  to  be  lawful  "  ministers  "  in  the  Church,"  and  "  have  had 
Episcopal  consecration  or  ordination."  This  has  been  the  govern- 
ing rule,  universal,  unvarying,  within  my  knowledge. 

That  the  occasional  ministering,  or  speaking,  or  preaching,  in 
our  churches  by  other  persons,  is  a  violation  of  this  law,  and  an 
"  officiating  "  in  our  congregations,  cannot  be  maintained  by  the 


19 

general  judgment  and  practice  of  the  Church.  I  have  known 
Presbyterians,  Baptists,  Methodists,  Roman  Catholics,  Russian, 
Greek,  and  German  Lutheran  ministers,  all  permitted  to  "  officiate" 
by  Bishops,  if  their  occasional  and  exceptional  exercises  were 
"  officiating,"  in  the  meaning  of  our  law.  Laymen,  ordained  by 
no  one,  have  been  invited  to  speak  in  our  churches  by  Bishops. 
Laymen  are  authorized  to  read  our  whole  regular  Liturgy,  by 
Bishops.  And  while  our  Church  has  never  deviated,  and  proba- 
bly never  will  deviate,  from  her  requisition  of  an  Episcopal 
ordination  for  her  ministers,  this  Church  has  never  adopted  the 
absolute  exclusion  of  all  others  from  occasional  service  in  our 
congregations.  Among  those  who  have  thus  officiated  in  con- 
gregations committed  to  me,  perhaps  I  could  enumerate  a  dozen 
ministers  of  different  denominations,  and  as  many  laymen,  in  an 
advocacy  of  different  claims  of  religious  benevolence  and  Chris- 
tian duty.  It  has  never  been  held,  by  the  body  of  the  Church, 
within  my  knowledge,  that  such  an  occasional  allowance  or 
invitation  of  ministrations,  is  the  "  accounting  or  taking "  of 
such  persons  to  be  "  lawful "  ministers,  in  the  sense  of  the  pre- 
face and  the  canons ;  or  an  assuming  to  discuss  the  question  of 
ordination  in  any  way;  or  that  such  occasional  ministrations 
were  a  violation,  either  of  our  principles  or  our  laws. 

But  it  is  not  my  purpose  or  desire  to  discuss  the  question,  what 
ought  to  be  the  interpretation  of  these  laws.  I  merely  undertake 
to  give  you  the  grounds  of  my  own  action.  I  consider  myself  in 
no  way  violating  such  prescriptions  for  our  regular  ministry  and 
government,  by  an  occasional  act  of  official  kindness  and  respect. 
I  have  often  heard  excited  and  assuming  young  men  denouncing 
such  a  course  as  manifesting  that  I  was  "  no  Churchman."  But  I 
am  now  for  the  first  time  in  my  life,  charged  by  a  Bishop  ruling 
over  me,  with  being  guilty  of  violating  my  solemn  oath,  in  the 
pursuit  of  such  a  career. 

I  do  not  think  a  general  mingling  of  the  ministrations  of  differ- 
ent denominations  of  Christians  to  be  wise,  or  likely  to  be  effect- 
ual. I  fear,  with  you,  that  such  "  efforts  will  tend  to  disorder  and 
confusion,  rather  than  to  peace  and  harmony."  But  I  cannot 
agree  with  you  that  the  "  proceedings  "  of  which  you  speak,  "  are 
contrary  to  the  usages  and  antecedents  of  the  Church,  and  con- 
trary to  the  well-established  judgment  of  the  Church,  as  to  the  mean- 
ing and  intent  of  her  law."  On  the  contrary,  I  fully  believe  that 
"  the  well-established  judgment  of  the  Church,  as  to  the  meaning 
and  intent  of  her  law,"  is,  the  preservation  of  absolute  uniformity 


20 

as  the  rule  of  government  in  the  stated  and  habitual  ministry  of 
our  congregations,  but  not  the  prohibition  of  such  occasional  ex- 
ceptions, as  Christian  kindness,  and  friendly  relations  among  the 
"  respective  churches  of  the  different  religious  denominations  of 
Christians,"  as  the  preface  to  our  Prayer-Book  defines  them,  may 
require.  The  privilege  of  union  on  common  ground  with  all  who 
love  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  for  religious  worship  and  Christian 
effort,  is  great  and  valuable ;  and  it  would  be  a  very  sad,  and  I 
think  a  very  destructive  day  for  our  Church,  if  the  affectionate 
and  friendly  participation  in  such  an  union  should  be  acknowledg- 
ed and  denounced  as  a  crime. 

The  High  Church  scheme  has  never  yet  succeeded  in  inflicting 
public  penalties,  so  significantly  described  on  the  eighth  page  of 
your  letter,  upon  those  who  have  refused  the  adoption  of  its  theo- 
ries of  interpretation.  If  your  Episcopate  should  be  allowed  to 
select  this  as  its  crowning  triumph,  while  it  would  be  "  a  yoke 
which  neither  we  nor  our  fathers  were  able  to  bear,"  it  would  be 
an  appeal  and  reference  to  posterity  and  the  future,  which  I  fear 
would  prove  in  its  result,  any  thing  but  honorable  and  a  success. 
I  wish  for  you,  my  dear  Bishop,  a  very  different  reputation,  anfl 
one  far  hiore  in  the  analogy  of  your  past  career,  and  I  must  be 
permitted  to  entreat  you,  whatever  "  clergymen  and  laymen" 
may  appeal  to  you,  not  to  suffer  yourself  to  throw  your  effective 
influence  finally  on  that  side  of  this  discussion.  "  If  this  counsel 
or  this  work  be  of  men,  it  will  come  to  naught ;  but  if  it  be  of 
God,  you  cannot  overthrow  it :  lest  haply  you  be  found  even  to 
fight  against  God." 

IV.  Your  fourth  head  of  selection  takes  up  the  other  subject  in 
discussion — the  use  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer.  Upon  this 
I  need  not  dwell  at  much  length.  The  principle  involved  lias 
already  been  included  in  my  previous  remarks.  The  language  of 
the  Canon  is  very  precise  in  its  application  to  what  are  called 
"  occasions  of  public  worship,"  and  "  before  all  sermons  and  lec- 
tures." The  use  of  the  regular  morning  and  evening  prayer  on 
such  occasions,  and  in  such  antecedence,  has  been,  accordingly, 
the  universal  habit  of  our  Church.  But  the  literal  and  absolute 
exclusion  and  inclusion  which  are  involved  in  its  forced  interpret- 
ation, I  presume  to  say,  would  not  find  an  illustration  of  its  obe- 
dience within  the  whole  Church.  I  doubt  if  there  be  a  single 
minister  of  the  Church  who  has  ever  carried  out  this  literal  appli- 
cation of  the  canon,  according  to  its  strict  interpretation. 

Who  is  there  that  has  never  read  any  thing  but  the  regular 


21 

morning  or  evening  prayer  before  sermons  or  lectures  ?  Who  is 
there  that  has  not  introduced,  and  seen  others  introduce,  mis- 
sionary meetings  and  other  occasions  of  benevolent  associations, 
when  there  were  many  lectures,  by  a  few  collects,  variously 
selected  and  put  together,  instead  of  insisting  on  the  whole 
morning  or  evening  prayer  ?  Who  is  there  in  the  ministry  that 
ever  pretended  to  carry  out.  an  obedience  to  all  the  rubrics  of 
the  Prayer-Book  ?  What  man,  Bishop  or  Presbyter,  has  obeyed 
the  first  rubric  in  the  office  for  the  ministration  of  Private  Bap- 
tism, "The  minister  of  every  parish  shall  often  admonish  the 
people  that  they  defer  not  the  baptism  of  their  children  longer 
than  the  first  or  second  Sunday  next  after  their  birth  "  ?  Who 
is  there  that  performs  the  office  of  Churching  of  Women,  or 
obeys  the  rubric  before  that  office  ? 

Complete  obedience  to  the  Prayer-Book  cannot  be  found 
in  our  Church.  Unreasonable  and  unnecessary  neglect  of  it  can 
no  more  be  found.  The  accredited  usage  of  the  Church  is,  gen- 
eral conformity  to  the  letter  of  the  canon  in  regular  assemblies 
for  stated  worship  in  our  congregations,  and  reasonable  liberty 
and  variety  on  all  other  occasions.  Any  other  interpretation  of 
the  canon  than  this  runs  into  inevitable  absurdity.  Accordingly, 
the  law  and  habit  of  the  Church  are,  throughout  all  our  congrega- 
tions, that  our  ministers  prepare,  or  select  from  others,  occasional 
offerings  of  prayer  for  multiplied  occasions  when  the  Prayer- 
Book  leaves  them  completely  unsupplied. 

Bishops,  who  have  no  more  authority  in  such  cases  than  any 
others,  have  always  followed  in  the  same  course,  because  the 
course  is  inevitable.  Bishop  Hobart's  private  prayers  for  fu- 
nerals, for  visitations  of  the  sick  and  the  afflicted,  which  are 
without  the  slightest  claim  to  authority,  and  as  really  violations 
of  the  canons  of  the  Church,  (of  which  you  say  "  the  Church 
leaves  nothing  to  the  fancy  or  caprice  of  the  officiating  minister, 
will  not  allow  her  children  to  be  disturbed  in  their  solemn  acts 
of  worship  by  the  intrusion  of  novel  forms  and  expressions,") 
as  any  extemporaneous  prayer  which  may  be  offered,  are  in  the 
habitual  use  perhaps  of  half  the  clergy  in  your  diocese,  and  they 
not  the  half  to  whom  your  present  rebukes  apply. 

My  dear  Bishop,  it  is  impossible  that  this  shall  be  otherwise. 
As  a  general  form,  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  is  adequate  and 
is  regarded.  As  applying  to  all  occasions,  meeting  all  occasions, 
and  excluding  all  other  exercises,  it  is  completely  insufficient ;  it 
never  has  been,  it  never  can  be  regarded.  No  ministry  in  our 


22 

Church  can  confine  itself  to  the  Prayer-Book  in  all  the  demands 
which  it  must  meet.  And  when  you  attempt  to  charge  a  viola- 
tion of  a  solemn  oath  upon  those  who  do  deviate  from  it,  you 
really  include  in  your  accusation  of  perjury  all  the  ministers  of 
our  Church.  To  carry  out  the  literal  meaning  of  your  own 
words — "  the  Church  binds  the  conscience  of  every  minister  to  a 
strict  conformity,"  "  within  her  fold  she  will  endure  no  irregu- 
larity " — is  simply  impossible.  I  must  take  the  liberty  to  doubt 
whether  your  own  personal  practice  would  not  be  found  amenable 
for  many  inevitable  violations  of  your  own  prescription. 

For  myself,  the  principles  of  my  ministry  are,  first,  to  obey  my 
Master's  great  injunction,  "  to  preach  the  gospel  to  every  crea- 
ture ;"  second,  to  use  the  Prayer-Book  before  all  sermons  and 
lectures,  and  on  all  occasions  of  public  worship ;  third,  on  every 
occasion  of  preaching  to  others  than  regular  Episcopal  congrega- 
tions, to  use  as  much  of  the  Prayer-Book  as  I  think  appropriate 
to  the  occasion  and  consistent  with  the  useful  and  impressive  con. 
ducting  of  the  worship  of  such  occasion,  and  to  add  whatever 
other  prayers  I  think  adapted  to  be  useful  and  a  blessing  ;  fourth, 
after  all  sermons  and  lectures,  and  on  all  other  occasions  which  I 
think  do  not  come  within  the  reasonable  application  of  the  canon 
to  employ  such  prayers  as  I  think  suitable  to  the  circumstances  in 
which  I  am  placed. 

A  reasonable  and  free  interpretation  of  the  canon,  and  not 
what  you  call  a  "  severe  "  and  excluding  one,  has  been  the  habit 
of  my  work  and  the  rule  of  my  ministry.  I  have  neither  the 
ability  nor  the  intention  to  change  it.  If  this  be  a  violation 
of  my  oath,  I  must  bear  the  penalty  and  endure  the  guilt. 
To  such  a  course  I  have  habitually  counselled  younger  brethren 
in  the  ministry,  as  the  only  way  in  which  they  will  be  likely 
to  fulfil  their  ministry  to  the  glory  of  God  and  the  edifying 
the  Church.  I  have  endeavored  to  obey  the  canons  and  the  ru- 
brics, as  far  as  such  obedience  appeared  practicable  and  reason- 
able, trying  never  to  forget  the  principle  of  interpretation  given 
by  Archbishop  Tillotson  to  Bishop  Beveridge :  "  Charity  and 
common-sense  are  above  the  rubrics." 

Such,  as  is  my  practice,  I  presume  is  the  practice  of  the  great 
body  of  our  clergy.  To  change  this  practice  and  silence  this  uni- 
versal freedom  is  beyond  the  power  or  the  right  of  Episcopal  au- 
thority. If  you  resolve  to  force  the  principles  and  conclusions  of 
your  letter  to  their  utmost  application,  no  one  will  envy  you  the 


23 

social  influence  you  will  have  exercised  in  the  Church,  or  the  rela- 
tions of  trial  and  sorrow  you  will  have  created. 

But  to  undertake  a  system  of  advice  to  you  is  not  within  my 
province.  I  do  not  design  to  have  any  controversy  on  the 
subject  with  any.  I  shall  not  give  my  time  or  thought  to  a 
discussion  of  the  points  involved  beyond  their  application  to 
myself.  How  sincerely  I  regret  the  course  which  you  have  now 
opened  I  could  not  perhaps  describe  to  you.  But  so  far  as  I  am 
concerned,  my  personal  feelings  toward  yourself  will  be  as  un- 
changed as  my  own  principles  of  action.  It  has  been  the  pri- 
vilege and  pleasure  of  my  position  under  your  oversight  to 
maintain  the  most  affectionate  relations  toward  yourself.  I 
trust  nothing  may  interrupt  this  relation  toward  yoiirself  while 
we  live.  But  if  persecution  is  to  come  for  the  truth's  sake,  and 
pains  and  penalties  are  to  be  inflicted,  such  as  you  italicize  on 
the  eighth  page  of  your  letter,  I  have  no  reason  to  expect  immu- 
nity ;  I  have  no  desire  to  present  excuse ;  I  have  no  ground  to 
occupy  differing  from  brethren  whom  I  love,  who  are  in  the  same 
condemnation ;  and  I  shall,  in  no  way,  shelter  myself  from  the 
projected  operation  of  authority  or  power,  however  unjust  it  may 
be  esteemed. 

My  dear  Bishop,  my  heart's  desire  and  prayer  is  for  the  richest 
blessings  of  a  Saviour's  grace  to  rest  upon  you  and  your  work 
for  ever,  hoping  to  dwell  with  you  eternally  where  the  one  great 
law  will  be  the  universal  law  of  love. 

I  am,  with  great  respect,  your  servant  and  brother  in  Christ, 

STEPHEN  H.  TYNG. 

ST.  GEOEGE'S  RECTORY,  June,  1865. 


A  LETTER 


Rt.  Rev. 


HORATIO  POTTER,  D.D.,  ETC., 


FROM   THE 


REV.  E.  H.  CANFIELD,  D.D., 

of 


JUNE,   MDCCCLXV. 


To  the  Rt.  Rev.  II.  Potter,  D.D.,  etc.,  Bishop  of  the  Protest- 
ant Episcopal  Church  in  the  Diocese  of  New-  York. 

MY  DEAK  BISHOP  : 

I  have  carefully  read  your  recent  Pastoral  Letter.  It  applies 
in  part,  and  is  doubtless  so  designed,  to  me.  I  write  this,  to 
explain  my  position  in  regard  to  the  conduct  it  condemns,  and 
shall  avoid,  so  far  as  I  can,  consistently  with  securing  this 
end,  any  attempt  to  present  a  full  reply  to,  or  a  thorough  criti- 
cism of  the  letter.  I  have  no  doubt  that  it  was  penned  and  is- 
sued with  "  reluctance,"  and  that  you  still  cherish  toward  the 
"  few  "  brethren  whose  "  official  proceedings  "  suggested  "  the 
propriety  and  even  necessity  "  of  the  Letter,  the  same  "  unfail- 
ing personal  kindness  "  which  has  uniformly  marked  your  inter- 
course with  them.  My  own  experience  most  unreservedly  and 
fully  confirms  your  first  and  second  statements,  on  the  first 
and  second  pages  of  the  Pastoral.  As  you  refer  to  these 
personal  matters,  I  may  add,  that  ever  since  your  elevation  to 
the  Episcopate,  I  have  felt  thankful  that  we  had  so  kindly  and 
paternal  a  spirit  at  the  head  of  the  Diocese,  and  that  I  have 
always  sought  to  uphold  your  influence,  and  vindicate  your 
administration. 

In  doing  that  which  your  Letter  officially  judges  and  re- 
proves, I  have  not,  as  you  hope,  "  acted  hastily."  I  have  done 
what  I  frequently  observed  in  Pennsylvania  and  Virginia  be- 
fore my  ordination ;  what  I  often  did,  during  my  five  years' 
ministry  in  Ohio ;  and  what  I,  and  others,  have  done  in  this 
Diocese,  so  far  as  I  am  concerned,  without  the  slightest  idea 
that  it  was  contrary  to  any  law  of  our  Church,  or  that  any 
well-informed  person  so  regarded  it.  You  wrote  me  last  win- 
ter that  several  of  the  Brooklyn  clergy  had  formally  complained 
to  you,  of  my  allowing  the  Eev.  Dr.  Budington  to  preach  in 
my  church.  Those  of  our  clergy  who  were  present  on  that 
occasion  approved  of  the  service.  No  other  Brooklyn  clergy- 
man made  any  inquiries  of  me  in  regard  to  the  matter.  No 
one  intimated  that  he  was  offended  at  the  proceeding,  or  knew 
any  thing  about  it,  and  I,  in  charity  to  them,  presumed  that 


their  complaint  was  based  on  a  misapprehension  of  the  facts; 
that  their  impressions  were  derived  from  public  rumor,  or  from 
a  source  which,  in  regard  to  some  matters,  seems  even  less  re- 
liable, the  newspapers.  I  certainly  had  no  reason  to  suppose 
that  you  disapproved  of  what  I  had  done,  after  you  learned 
from  me  what  had  actually  taken  place,  until  I  received  the 
Pastoral  Letter. 

Your  letter  refers  to  and  cites  certain  statements  and  rules, 
from  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  and  from  the  Canons. 
They  are,  of  course,  as  familiar  to  the  clergy  as  to  you,  and 
their  sacred  obligations  are  as  fully  recognized  by  one  as  by 
the  other.  You  cannot  subscribe  more  honestly  and  heartily 
than  I  do  to  the  declaration  which  we  each  pronounced  "just 
before  our  ordination."  I  concur  fully  with  you  in  all  that 
follows  qn  the  fifth,  sixth,  seventh,  and  eighth  pages  of  the 
Letter,  with  the  reservation,  that  while  "  it  is  evident  "  to  me 
"  that  from  the  Apostles'  times,"  etc.,  I  cannot  say  that  "  it  is 
evident  unto  all  men"  etc.,  for  this  does  not  appear  to  be  his- 
torically true ;  and  also  that  whenever  you  say  ';  the  Church" 
I  would  say,  in  the  language  of  the  Prayer-Book  and  of  our 
Canons,  " this  Church"  or  our  Church.  To  my  mind,  the 
distinction  is  very  important. 

Some  of  the  inferences  which  you  draw  from  these  premises 
are  not  so  obvious  to  me,  as  they  appear  to  be  to  you. 

I  never  have  supposed,  nor  do  I  now  believe,  that  the  elev- 
enth Canon  (Title  I.)  forbids  my  loaning  my  church  to  a 
religious  association  for  a  religious  purpose,  and  taking  any 
part  in  the  services  I  may  deem  proper. 

I  never  heard  such  a  construction  placed  upon  it,  until  I 

read  the  Pastoral  Letter.     The  interpretation  and  the  prac- 

'  tice,  here  and  elsewhere,  have  been  averse  to  this  theory,  and 

I  am  unable  to  learn  that  any  authoritative  judicial  decision 

has  ever  been  made  to  that  effect. 

The  object  and  the  application  of  the  twentieth  Canon 
(Title  I.)  are  very  clearly  set  forth  by  you,  on  the  tenth  and 
eleventh  pages  of  the  Letter.  I  subscribe  most  cordially  to 
every  word  you  say  in  regard  to  it,  and  conform  faithfully  to 
what  I  understand  the  Canon  requires.  I  always  supposed  that 
our  Church  designed  in  this  way,  to  secure,  not  only  "  absolute 


uniformity  of  worship,"  but  also,  a  service  which  would  be 
appropriate  and  edifying  "  to  her  children,"  (her  own  congre- 
gations of  worshipping  people.)  I  have  regretted  and  mourned 
over  the  late  "  intrusion  of  novelties  "  in  certain  quarters,  cal- 
culated "  to  disturb  them  in  their  solemn  acts  of  worship  ;"  but 
I  never  imagined  that  in  this  provision,  she  designed  to  forbid 
her  ministry  to  preach  the  Gospel,  except  to  such  congrega- 
tions, where  it  ought  to  be  least  needed.  I  have  acted  upon 
this  view  of  the  Canon  frequently,  during  my  ministry  of 
twenty-one  years.  Hundreds  of  similar  instances  have  come 
to  my  knowledge.  The  practice  is  common.  "While  the  his- 
torical interpretation  of  this  Canon  thus  confirms  what  appears 
to  me  to  be  its  natural  meaning  and  application,  if  the  history 
of  our  Cfmrch,  since  its  enactment,  furnishes  a  judicial  decision 
to  the  contrary,  I  am  ignorant  of  it. 

The  following  are  the  offences  of  the  most  "  flagrant  "  na- 
ture, which  your  construction  of  the  Canon  charges  upon  me. 
I  loaned  my  church,  last  December,  to  the  "  Christian  Unity 
Society,"  for  a  specific  purpose.  They  applied  to  me  for  the 
use  of  it,  "  at  a  time  when  it  was  not  required  for  the  use  of 
the  ordinary  congregation,"  our  second  service  being  uniformly 
held  in  the  afternoon.  I  loaned  it  to  this  Association,  just  as 
I  have  done  to  the  Christian  Commission,  the  Brooklyn  Sun- 
day-School Union,  etc.,  and,  as  other  churches  are  often  used 
for  similar  purposes,  in  a  similar  way.  Not  to  evade,  but  to 
obey  the  law ;  in  order  to  avoid  all  possibility  of  giving  offence, 
even  to  the  most  bigoted  and  narrow  constructiomst^'  I  dis- 
tinctly explained  to  "  the  congregation  of  our  Church  "  in  the 
morning,  that,  in  compliance  with  the  request  of  this  Associa- 
tion, and  in  reciprocation  of  the  courtesy  of  Dr.  Budington  to 
the  Bishop- elect  of  "Western  New- York,  I  had  consented  to  its 
use  of  the  church  in  the  evening,  as  we  had  no  use  for  it  our- 
selves at  that  hour ;  and  I  also  read  from  a  note  from  the  Se- 
cretary of  the  Association,  an  invitation  to  such  members  of 
the  congregation  as  felt  interested  in  the  object  of  the  Society, 
to  attend. 

As  in  other  meetings  of  this  kind  in  my  church,  I  was  in- 
vited to  conduct  the  devotions,  and  did  so,  giving  out  a  hymn, 
reading  a  portion  of  Scripture,  and  offering  a  prayer,  partly 


6 

extemporaneous,  and  partly  composed  of  the  Collects  of  our 
Church.  If  I  remember  rightly,  the  Gloria  in  Excelsis,  and 
an  Anthem,  were  sung.  Of  this,  however,  I  am  not  certain. 
I  mention  these  details,  not  because  they  materially  affect  the 
case  one  way  or  the  other,  but  to  set  my  offence  fully,  and  in 
its  most  glaring  form,  before  you.  I  thus  conducted  the  serv- 
ice, and  the  Rev.  Dr.  Budington  preached  an  excellent  dis- 
course, in  which  he  demonstrated  that  the  Protestant  Episco- 
pal Church,  deservedly  recognized  as  the  mother  of  all  the 
Protestant  Churches,  was  more  truly  catholic  and  comprehen- 
sive in  her  standards  than  any  of  her  children.  "  The  mem- 
bers of  our  communion  "  from  my  church,  and  rectors  of 
other  churches  who  were  present,  so  far  from  regarding  these 
things  as  "  a  flagrant  violation  of  the  spirit  and  intent  of  our 
law,"  expressed  their  high  gratification  at  the  services. 

I  have  also  preached  three  times  in  New- York  to  non-Epis- 
copal congregations,  without  the  use  of  the  Prayer-Book.  I 
took  no  part  whatever  in  any  of  the  services,  before  or  after 
preaching. 

In  the  first  instance,  I  did  so  to  supply  the  place  of  the  Rev. 
Dr.  A.  H.  Vinton,  who  was  unable  to  fulfil  his  engagement. 
By  particular  request,  I  repeated  the  sermon  a  few  weeks  after- 
ward in  the  same  place.  This  was  nearly  two  and  a  half 
years  ago.  The  course  of  sermons,  of  which  this  was  one,  was 
widely  advertised  and  very  numerously  attended,  but  I  never 
heard  an  intimation,  that  my  part  in  it  was  disapproved  of,  as 
in  any  view  improper,  or  that  any  one  regarded  it  as  a  viola- 
tion of  law.  With  this  view,  I,  last  winter,  accepted  an  invi- 
tation from  the  Rev.  Dr.  Hutton  to  preach  in  his  church. 
These  are  the  most  striking  and  marked  cases,  of  my  crimes. 
I  confess  them  without  reservation  or  apology.  I  have  never 
been  a  member  of  either  of  the  Societies,  to  which  your  Letter 
probably  refers.  I  have  never  attended  one  of  their  meetings, 
except  that  which  was  held  in  my  church.  I  am  content  to 
walk  in  the  "  old  paths,"  and  fondly  supposed  I  was  doing  so, 
in  a  true  love  of  order,  peace,  and  quietness.  Conscious  of  no 
factious  spirit,  ready  to  make  any  sacrifices  short  of  principle 
and  my  own  character,  for  the  sake  of  peace ;  with  what  I 
supposed  to  be  an  intelligent^  certainly  with  an  affectionate 


regard  for  the  Church  of  niy  ancestry  for  many  generations ; 
with  an  honest  and  ardent  desire  to  extend  her  influence  and 
promote  her  interests  ;  with  no  disposition  to  seek  after  novel- 
ties of  any  sort ;  desiring  only  to  work  on  quietly  in  my  hum- 
ble sphere;  I  find  myself  paraded  before  the  public  as  an 
innovator,  and  a  violator  of  the  law  and  principles  of  that 
Church,  to  which  I  have  solemnly  sworn  true  fidelity  and 
allegiance.  If  this  be  true,  I,  in  common  with  many  others 
all  over  the  land,  (for  these  Canons  are  "  for  the  Government 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America,")  deserve  the  severest  punishment,  either  for  our  life- 
long ignorance,  or  for  our  wilful  disregard  of  the  most  solemn 
promises  and  sacred  obligations.  I  do  not  write  as  strongly 
as  I  feel. 

It  is  manifest  to  every  reader  of  the  Letter,  that  the  grava- 
men of  the  offences  complained  of,  consists  in  certain  acts  of 
ministers  of  our  Church,  from  which  the  public  might  infer 
that  the  actor  recognized  the  validity  of  non-Episcopal  orders. 
This  is  obviously  the  head  and  heart  of  the  oifence.  It  stands 
but  boldly  in  all  the  document.  This  constitutes  the  only 
essential  difference  between  the  use  of  Trinity  Chapel,  by  a 
supposed  minister  of  the  Russo-Greek  Church,  of  which  the 
Letter  approves,  and  of  the  Ascension  Church  by  a  Presbyte- 
rian, which  you  condemn.  (The  Canon  no  more  authorizes 
the  presence  of  a  minister  from  the  English  Church  than  it 
does  from  the  Baptist  or  Presbyterian  Churches.  It  makes 
no  reference  to  his  Episcopal  or  his  non-Episcopal  ordination.) 
The  Pastoral  Letter  is  evidently  based  upon  the  theory,  that 
the  Canons  were  expressly  designed  to  deny  the  validity  of 
non-Episcopal  orders,  and  to  forbid  any  public  acts  which 
might  appear  to  sanction  such  a  doctrine.  I  do  not  question 
your  right  to  draw  this  conclusion  from  them,  and  to  hold  it 
as  a  matter  of  private  opinion,  but  I  do  respectfully  protest 
against  your  attempt  to  enforce  your  inferences,  in  an  arbitrary 
way,  as  the  law  of  our  Church.  You  must  know  that  this  was 
not  the  doctrine  of  the  Reformers  and  Fathers  of  the  Church 
of  England,  who  framed  the  Articles  and  arranged  the  Prayer- 
Book  ;  and  that  the  founders  of  our  Church  in  this  country 


8 

were  "  far  from  iutefading  to  depart  from  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land in  any  essential  point  of  doctrine,  discipline,  or  •worship." 
No  historical  fact  is  more  "  evident  "  than  that  the  Thirty- 
nine  Articles,  which  are  expressed  in  carefully  selected,  tech- 
nical phraseology  to  set  forth  her  doctrine  and  principles,  not 
only  avoid  taking  this  position,  but  that,  in  defining  the  visi- 
ble Church,  and  declaring  what  is  necessary  to  constitute  min- 
isterial authority,  language  is  employed  which  was  purposely 
designed  to  recognize  the  validity  of  the  orders  of  the  non- 
Episcopal  Churches  of  Scotland,  and  of  the  continent  of  Eu- 
rope. Every  well-informed  person  knows  that,  as  a  conse- 
quent and  consistent  fact,  for  the  first  hundred  years  after  the 
Reformation,  those  having  only  Presbyterian  orders  were  ad- 
mitted without  redrdination  to  livings  and  benefices  in  the 
Church  and  Universities  of  England.  It  is  equally  as  well 
known,  that  when  the  Laudean  party,  under  Charles  II.,  asked 
for  a  change  in  this  particular,  the  legislation  which  granted 
the  request  was  based  upon  other  grounds  than  the  irregular- 
ity or  invalidity  of  non-Episcopal  orders.  You  must  know,  as 
well  as  I,  that  most  of  the  leading  divines  of  the  Church  of 
England,  from  the  time  of  Henry  VIII.  to  that  of  Victoria  L, 
and,  I  may  add,  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  Unit- 
ed States,  from  Bishop  White  to  the  present  day,  in  the  lan- 
guage of  the  lateProfessor  Turner,  "  never  admitted  the  conclu- 
sion that  those  who  abandoned  Episcopacy  thereby  unchurch- 
ed themselves."  I  have  always  held,  and  still  believe,  not 
only  that  their  views  are  true,  but  that  they  are  demonstrably 
the  doctrine  of  our  Church  ;  that  those  who  hold  opposite 
views  are  permitted  to  do  so  in  a  spirit  of  large  toleration,  and 
that  our  rubrics  and  Canons  are  to  be  so  interpreted  as  to  har- 
monize with,  and  not  violate  these  principles,  "  wrhich  are  gen- 
erally deemed  sacred."  For  twenty-one  years  I  have  stead- 
fastly maintained  them  from  the  pulpit ;  I  expect  to  do  so 
while  I  am  permitted  to  preach.  Bishops  and  presbyters,  in 
charges,  in  sermons,  and  from  the  press,  have  always  done, 
and  still  do  the  same  thing.  Is  it  lawful  thus  to  preach  and 
disseminate  doctrines,  while  any  act,  which,  by  a  remote  infer- 
ence, the  public  might  regard  as  a  recognition  of  the  truth  of 
these  same  principles  is  for  that  reason  unlawful  ?  Is  it  con- 


9 

ceivable  that  our  bishops,  clergy,  and  laity  would  enact  Can- 
ons for  the  express  purpose  of  condemning  their  own'  princi- 
ples ?  that  they  would  make  certain  acts  penal  offences,  on  the 
ground  that  what  they  are  permitted  openly  to  prof  ess  and 
preach  without  objection  or  hindrance,  is  a  heresy,  to  be  visit- 
ed with  pains  and  penalties,  whenever  it  is  inferentially  sanc- 
tioned by  outward  conduct  ?     A  more  natural  and  consistent 
standpoint,  from  which  to  view  these  rules  and  regulations,  it 
seems  to  me  would  be,  that  they  were  not  designed  to  teach 
doctrines,  or  assert  principles,  so  much  as  to  determine  what 
we  deemed  right  and  best  for  the  discipline  and  worship  of  our 
own  ministers  and  congregations  ;  leaving  other  denomina- 
tions of  Christians,  in   the  language  of  the  Preface  to  our 
Prayer-Book,  "  full  and  equal  liberty  to  model  and  organize 
their  respective  churches,  and  forms  of  worship  and  discipline, 
in  such  manner  as  they  might  judge  most  convenient  for  their 
future  prosperity."     I  see  nothing  in  the  principles  of  our 
Church  to  forbid  an  occasional  exchange  of  pulpits  and  serv- 
ices with  a  Presbyterian  or  other  orthodox  minister,  unless  a 
Canon,  in  its  nature  conventional,  and  liable  each  third  year 
to  be  annulled  or  changed,  may  bear  this  construction,  and 
claim  to  be  placed  in  this  high  position. 

As  general  usage  has  affixed  a  certain  interpretation  to  this 
Canon,  in  this  diocese,  I  accept  it  as  my  rule,  and  during  my 
residence  here,  of  nearly  sixteen  years,  I  have  been  careful  to 
act  accordingly,  seeking  to  "  give  no  offence,  that  the  minis- 
try be  not  blamed."  Upon  a  careful  review  of  my  actions, 
which  are  reproved  in  the  Pastoral  Letter,  I  cannot  feel  that 
I  have  done  wrong.  I  have  done  nothing  which  I  think  ought 
to  be  an  offence  to  any  Christian  man  ;  nothing  which  I  did 
not  believe,  and  do  not  now  believe,  I  had,  "  according  to  the 
will  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  according  to  the  Canons  of 
this  Church,"  an  unquestionable  right  to  do. 

And  yet  the  fact  stares  me  in  the  face,  that,  without  any 
Canonical  authority,  without  any  legal  inquiry  as  to  the  facts, 
without  any  intimation  to  me  of  your  purpose,  you  have,  in 
the  estimation  of  the  public,  virtually  arraigned,  tried,  con- 
demned,*^ punished  me.  The  facts  and  the  principles  in- 
volved have  not  been  changed  by  this  procedure;  but  you 


10 

must  perceive  that  your  relation  to  them,  and  to  me,  as  one 
accused  by  yon  of  a  grave  offence,  has  been  materially  altered. 
If  any  of  the  accused  persons  now  insist  upon  a  trial,  accord- 
ing to  the  Canons,  you  will  necessarily  be  a  party  ih  the  case. 
Their  acquittal  is  your  condemnation.  A  formal  trial  of  any 
one  of  the  numerous  cases  reproved  by  the  Letter  would  now 
be  a  virtual  trial  of  yourself.  All  your  personal  feelings 
and  interests  call  for  the  conviction  and  punishment  of  the 
brethren  who,  in  other  circumstances,  might  look  to  you,  un- 
der the  Canons,  as  an  impartial  judge,  set  to  protect  them 
against  prejudice,  persecution,  or  injustice.  While  I  might 
add  much  more,  I  could  not  well  have  said  less,  consistently 
with  my  purpose  ;  which  has  been  not  to  controvert  your  po- 
sition, any  farther  than  it  was  necessary  to  do  so,  in  vindicat- 
ing myself.  Your  motives  in  this  matter,  I  fully  believe,  were 
honest  and  kindly  toward  those  who  are  rebuked. 

That  God  may  heal  the  divisions  and  hush  the  contentions 
of  his  Church,  by  purifying  her  from  all  error,  false  doctrine, 
and  persecuting  tempers,  and  by  filling  her  more  and  more 
with  the  mind  of  her  Divine  Head,  is  the  earnest  prayer  of 
Yours  faithfully  and  truly, 

E.  H.  CANFIELD, 
Rector  of  Christ  Church. 

BROOKLYN,  June  2,  1865. 


REVIEW 

OF 

astoral  $ttta  to  % 

OF   THE 

DIOCESE  OF  NEW-YOKK,  FEOM  THE  BISHOP." 

BY 

BEY.    E.    H.    CANFIELD,    D.D., 

RECTOR   OF    CHRIST    CHURCH,  BROOKLYN,  L.  I. 


JULY,   MDCCCLXr. 


REVIEW   ETC. 


THE  late  Pastoral  Letter,  from  the  Bishop  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  Diocese  of  New-York,  as  was  anticipated 
by  the  writer,  has  "  exposed  him  to  hard  thoughts  from  within 
the  (this  ?)  Church,"  as  well  as  to  severe  criticism  from  without. 
"We  are  told,  from  a  quarter  which  claims  a  high  position  :  "  This 
Pastoral  has  a  history,  and  is  one  of  the  most  important  docu- 
ments ever  issued  by  an  American  Bishop."  It  seems  likely  to 
have  a  subsequent,  if  it  had  no  antecedent  history.  Its  real  his- 
tory, in  the  Protestant  Church,  dates  back  to  the  days  of  Laud. 
Its  principles  are  those  of  a  party  which  has  been  more  or  less 
active  and  powerful  in  the  English  Church  and  in  our  own  since 
that  period :  but  the  enforcement  of  these  party  views,  as  the 
law  of  our  Church,  is  a  new  and  certainly  a  bold  policy ;  a  meas- 
ure so  novel  and  essentially  revolutionary,  that  it  very  naturally 
excites  astonishment,  and  challenges  the  most  careful  and  thor- 
ough examination.  There  is,  with  this  exception,  nothing  to 
which  we  are  unaccustomed  in  this  paper.  We  are  familiar  with 
its  principles,  spirit,  and  mode  of  reasoning.  Dogmatism,  in- 
stead of  proof;  assumption,  in  lieu  of  facts  ;  hasty  and  false  con- 
clusions from  correct  premises,  and  wide  inferences  from  narrow 
premises,  have  ever  characterized  the  party  whose  views  are  here 
represented.  The  same,  opinions  and  notions,  if  published  anony- 
mously, would  have  attracted  very  little  attention ;  or,  if  they 
had  been  presented  to  the  public  as  the  views  of  one  of  our  cler- 
gymen, would  have  excited  but  little  interest  or  comment.  The 
general  feeling  would  have  been  that  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,  in  that  tolerant  and  comprehensive  spirit  which  so  char- 
acterizes her  standards  and  has  marked  her  history,  permits,  in  all 
unessential  matters,  great  variety  of  opinion  and  even  of  corre- 
sponding practice  ;  and  that,  in  the  exercise  of  that  liberty,  even 


these  extreme  views  might  be  tolerated  as  matters  of  private 
judgment.  To  many,  they  might  appear  to  violate  the  law  of 
Christian  charity,  and  to  be  inconsistent  with  the  principles  of  our 
reformers,  and  the  facts  of  our  own  history  as  a  Church  ;  but 
while  such  would  be  thankful  for  the  liberty  wherewith  Christ 
had  made  them  free,  and  be  careful  not  to  become  "  entangled 
,  again  with  the  yoke  of  bondage,"  they  would  still  bear  in  mind 
the  inquiry,  "  Who  art  thou  that  judgest  another  man's  serv- 
ant ?"  knowing  that  "  to  his  own  master  he  standeth  or  falleth." 
But  the  Pastoral  comes  before  us  from  the  head  of  the  Dio- 
cese, not  only  with  the  weight  of  the  Bishop's  character  and  po- 
sition, but  as  an  official  and  authoritative  document.  This  is  ob- 
vious from  its  address,  from  the  title  affixed  to  the  signature,  and 
from  the  whole  tone  and  language  of  the  paper. 

In  that  form  and  view,  it  calls  for  some  definite  notice.  It  is 
this  which  alone  gives  it  any  serious  importance.  It  is  styled :  "A 
Pastoral  Letter  to  the  Clergy  of  the  Diocese  of  New-York  fro*m 
the  Bishop."  While  it  is  thus  addressed  to  all,  care  is  taken  at 
the  outset  to  state  that  but  few  of  the  clergy  need  it.  It  is  de- 
signed, therefore,  for  but  these  "few."  There  is  no  canonical 
authority  for  such  a  proceeding. 

By  Section  X.,  Canon  xiii.,  (title  1,)  the  Bishop  is  recommended 
"  to  deliver  a  charge,  to  the  clergy  of  his  Diocese  at  least  once  in 
three  years,  and  also  from  time  to  time  to  address  to  the  people  of 
his  diocese  Pastoral  Letters,  on  some  points  of  Christian  doctrine, 
worship,  or  manners."    This  is  neither  a  charge  delivered  to  the 
clergy,  nor  a  pastoral  addressed  to  the  people.    If  the  Bishop  de- 
sired to  give  advice  or  suggest  a  warning  to  the  "  few  who  he 
hoped  had  acted  hastily,"  it  could  easily  have  been  done  in  pri- 
vate, and  any  friendly  counsel  thus  given  would  have  been  wel- 
comed, and  allowed  to  have  its  due  influence  ;  but  the  document 
before  us  is  obviously  of  another  character.     So  all  understand  it, 
and  so  it  was  doubtless  intended  that  it  should  be  regarded.     It 
judges  of  facts,  it  renders  a  verdict,  it  interprets  the  canons,  it 
passes  sentences  of  judgment — it  does  all  this  officially,  without 
any  legal  inquiry  as  to  the  facts,  without  notice  to  the  accused, 
without  any  canonical  authority  to  do,  or  pretend  to  do  a  single 
one  of  these  things.    If  a  minister  of  this  Church  shall  be  ac- 
cused by  public  rumor  of  any  offence  punishable  by  canon,  the 
Bishop  is  directed  to  see  that  an  inquiry  be  instituted  as  to  the 
truth  of  such  public  rumor,  and,  in  case  of  the  individual's  beinc* 
proceeded  against  and  convicted,  according  to  the  prescribed  ruks, 


and  process,  to  inflict  suitable  punishment.    He  is  not  left  to  the 
exercise  of  his  discretion  or  indiscretion  in  the  premises.     This  is 
the  exercise  of  discipline,  according  "  to  the  authority  of  God's 
Word,  and  by  the  order  of  this  Church,"  which  every  Bishop  is 
required  to  promise  at  his  consecration.     In  the  language  of  the 
Pastoral  Letter,  "He  is  as  much  under  the  guidance  and  control 
of  the  law  of  the  (this  ?)  Church  as  any  other  clergyman  ;"  and 
yet,  while  refusing  to  follow  the  direction  of  the  canon,  by  the 
course  here  pursued,  he  virtually  prefers  charges,  tries,  convicts, 
and  inflicts  penalties,  without  any  authority,  and  in  a  way  of  his 
own  invention.    If  he  believes  that  "  things  have  occurred  in  the 
way  of  clerical  action  which  are  contrary  to  the  law  of  the  (this  ?) 
Church,  and  injurious  to  its  peace  and  good  order,"  and  if  these 
things  constitute  so  "  flagrant  a  violation  of  the  spirit  and  intent 
•four  law"  as  to  call  forth  a  "  severity  of  judgment "  against 
the  offenders,  as  men  who  act  from  "  the  mere  promptings  of  sen- 
timent and  self-will,  which  disregard  the  paramount  obligations 
of  obedience,"  then  the  canons  plainly  prescribe  his  course  of 
duty.     They  leave  him  no  choice.    They  do  this  for  the  protection 
of  the  clergy  against  the  offensive  action  of  individual  caprice, 
prejudice,  or  misconception,  as  well  as  to  punish  offenders.     It 
would  be  an  unworthy  evasion  to  say  that  no  names  are  men- 
tioned, and  that  therefore  no  particular  persons  are  aimed  at  or 
officially  reproved. 

The  inferences  and  arguments  of  the  Pastoral  stand  on  their 
own^merits.  The  Bishop  has  the  same  right  to  hold  his  private 
opinions,  and  even  to  publish  them  as  such,  as  any  other  man  or 
minister ;  but  the  assumption  of  authority  which  this  document 
involves  is  startling.  A  student  of  history  or  of  human  nature 
cannot  fail  to  see  whither  all  this  tends.  Very  few,  even  of  the 
extremists,  in  our  Church  are  ready  to  say,  "  Ecdesia  in  Episco- 
/>o,"  in  such  a  sense  as  to  abolish  our  constitution  and  written  law, 
and  lodge  all  power  in  the  irresponsible  will  of  the  Bishop.  In 
the  hands  of  our  present  Diocesan,  it  might  never  be  injudiciously 
exercised,  but  the  principle  involved  in  it  is  the  essence  of  despot- 


ism. 


The  document  itself  is  thus,  not  only  unauthorized  by  any  law 
of  our  Church,  but  in  it,  the  Bishop  virtually  assumes  to  exercise 
judicial  and  other  powers,  which  our  standards  of  discipline  do 
nor  confer  upon  him,  while  it  avowedly  confesses  to  a  plain  disre- 
gard of  the  most  obvious  directions  of  our  Canons  on  the  part  of 
its  author. 


6 

Let  us  now  turn  to  the  Pastoral  itself.  Its  title-page,  and  the 
signature  at  the  end  of  the  letter,  are  singular,  and,  in  their  rela- 
tions, highly  significant.  I  should  have  been  disposed  to  regard 
them  as  elliptical,  and  put  in  their  apparently  general  and  vague 
form  for  the  sake  of  brevity,  were  it  not  for  their  peculiar  and 
striking  harmony  with  the  doctrine  of  the  Letter  itself,  with  the 
manner  in  which  terms  are  employed  throughout  the  document, 
and  with  the  extravagant  and  exclusive  claims  of  the  narrow 
party  it  represents. 

It  is  addressed :  "  To  the  Clergy  of  the  Diocese  of  New- York." 
Who  are  they  ?  "  The  Diocese  of  New-York  "  has  certain  terri- 
torial boundaries.  "  The  Clergy  "  within  its  limits  are  here  desig- 
nated. Are  Presbyterian  and  other  Protestant  clergymen  in- 
cluded ?  Or  if  their  recognition,  as  clergymen,  is  out  of  the  ques- 
tion, is  the  letter  addressed  to  the  Romish  clergy  ?  There  is 
nothing  on  the  title-page  to  forbid  this  interpretation,  or  to  indi- 
cate that  it  was  designed  for  any  particular  branch  of  the  house- 
hold of  faith.  When  we  examine  it  more  closely,  to  learn  from 
whom  it  emanates,  our  information  is  no  more  exact  in  regard  to 
its  authorship,  than  in  respect  to  the  parties  for  whom  it  was  writ- 
ten. We  are  simply  told  that  it  is  "  from  the  Bishop."  We  are 
still  in  the  dark.  Several  persons  in  the  Diocese  of  New- York 
claim  to  be  Bishops.  We  supposed  there  was  one  who  claimed 
to  be  "  the  Bishop,"  but  he  is  accustomed  to  prefix  to  his  signa- 
ture "  f,"  as  his  distinguishing  mark.  What  Bishop  has  issued 
this  letter  ?  As  it  is  addressed  "  To  the  Clergy  of  the  Diocese  of 
New- York,"  the  inference  is  natural  that  the  author  of  the  letter 
is  "  the  Bishop  "  of  the  Diocese  of  New- York.  We  turn  to  the 
signature,  and  there  learn  that  his  title  is  "  Bishop  of  New- York." 
This,  if  possible,  is  broader  and  less  definite  than  the  title-page. 
The  name,  to  those  who  are  well  instructed  in  ecclesiastical  mat- 
ters, discloses  a  circumstance,  which  one  ignorant  of  the  facts 
would  be  puzzled  to  infer  from  the  titles  used,  that  he  who  as- 
sumes to  be  the  "  Bishop  of  New-York,"  is  only  "  the  Bishop  of 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  Diocese  of  New- York." 
This  is  his  proper  legal  title.  From  the  name  of  the  author,  we 
conclude  that  the  Pastoral  "  To  the  Clergy  of  the  Diocese  of  New- 
York  "  is  meant  for  the  clergy  of  that  particular  branch  of  the 
Church  over  which  he  canonically  presides,  and  that  it  should 
have  been  addressed :  "  To  the  Clergy  of  the  Protestant  Episco- 
pal Church  in  the  Diocese  of  New- York."  This  is  by  no  means 
mere  verbal  or  captious  criticism.  We  should  be  disposed  to  re- 


gard  this  singular  omission  to  designate  his  own  clergy  in  the  ad- 
dress, and  to  indicate  properly  his  own  office  in  the  signature,  as 
an  oversight,  if  the  same  exclusive  and  inclusive  assumptions  did 
not  characterize  the  entire  paper.    The  obstinate  pertinacity,  or  the 
uniformity  and  the  blindness  with  which  this  is  done  are  remark- 
able.   It  certainly  has  the  merit  of  consistency  with  itself,  if  not 
with  the  standards  of  worship  and  discipline  from  which  it  makes 
quotations.     There  is,  throughout  the  letter,  a  systematic  refusal 
to  apply  the  word  Church  to  any  non-Episcopal  denomination  of 
Christians,  while  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  is  called  "  the 
Church."     In  the  Prayer-Book  and  the  Canons  it  is  always  desig- 
nated as  "  this  Church,"  or  the  full  legal  title  is  given.    In  the 
letter  before  us,  the  words  "  this  Church "  are  employed  nine 
times  in  the  Canons  that  are  cited,  and  twice  in  the  preface  to  the 
ordinal  which  is  quoted  in  full.    The'' term  "  the  Church  "  is  not 
found  in  either,  and  yet  the  Bishop  persistently  uses  the  term 
"  the  Church,"  repeating  it  thirty-four  times  in  immediate  connec- 
tion with  these  citations,  to  signify  that  which  our  standards  with 
equal  persistency  call  "  this  Church."    It  is  hardly  conceivable 
that  this  should  be  undesigned.    Take  the  following  illustration. 
Immediately  after  quoting  from  the  Prayer-Book— "  To  the  intent 
that  these  orders  may  be  continued,  and  reverently  used  and  es- 
teemed in  this  Church,  no  man  shall  be  accounted  or  taken  to  be 
a  lawful  Bishop,  Priest,  or  Deacon,  in  this  Church,"  etc.— the  letter 
says  :  "Then  the  Church  proceeds,  according  to  that  declaration, 
to  enact,  in  her  very  first  Canon,  that, '  in  this  Church,  there  fthall 
always  be  three  orders  in  the  ministry.'  "      Our  Church  is  espe- 
cially favored,  on  this  hypothesis,  in  having  the  Church  to  legislate 
for  her.    It  would  hardly  be  respectful  to  the  Bishop  to  suppose 
that  he  believed  the  terms  synonymous  and  interchangeable.    He 
must  know  that  a  part  of  a  thing  is  not  the  whole  of  it,  and  that 
the  language  of  our  standards  plainly  proves  that  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  does  not  claim  to  be  the  Church,  but  a  Church 
—one  of  the  many  churches  of  Christendom,  which,  in  the  ag- 
gregate, constitute  the  Church  visible. 

Any  schoolboy  knows  that  the  distinction  between  the  term 
used  by  the  Bishop  and  that  employed  by  our  Church  is  plain  and 
broad  ;  and  all  who  are  well  informed  in  regard  to  the  recent  Ox- 
ford controversy,  know  that  it  is  not  only  important  but  funda- 
mental. There  is  nothing  new  in  all  this.  This  misuse  and  per- 
version of  titles  and  terms,  is  characteristic  of  that  party,  which 
scrupulously  ignores  and  denies  the  orders  and  church  status  of  all 


8 

Christian  bodies,  except  such  as  have  an  episcopally  constituted 
and  derived  ministry. 

It  pervades  the  literature  of  this  school.  The  Prayer-Book 
calls  them  churches,  they  say  dissenters  or  the  sects,  or,  "non-Epis- 
copal bodies ;"  the  Prayer-Book  says  table,  they  say  altar  ;  the 
Prayer-Book  says  this  Church,  they  say  the  Church  ;  the  law  says, 
"the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  Diocese  of  New- York;" 
our  Diocesan  writes,  "  Bishop  of  New- York."  Words  are  things. 
They  are  used  in  the  Pastoral  Letter  with  discrimination  and  care. 
I  have  not  given  undue  importance  to  that  which  might  appear, 
to  a  superficial  observer,  a  tuning  matter.  These  "  non-Episcopal 
bodies  "  may  hold  the  faith  in  every  essential  point  of  doctrine  ; 
the  graces  and  fruits  of  the  Spirit  may  be  clearly  and  powerfully 
illustrated  in  the  lives  of  their  members ;  their  ministry  may  be 
eminent  for  its  holiness,  and  its  success  in  the  conversion  ef  sin- 
ners, and  in  the  edification  of  the  Christian ;  they  may  preach 
"  the  pure  word  of  God  "  and  minister  "  the  sacraments  according 
to  Christ's  ordinance  in  all  those  things  which  of  necessity  are 
requisite  to  the  same,"  but,  because  they  lack  a  certain  ecclesiasti- 
cal pedigree,  of  which  their  own  standards  say  nothing — a  pedi- 
gree running  through  all  the  darkness,  corruptions,  and  idolatries 
of  the  middle  ages,  through  the  convulsions  and  decay  of  the  Ro- 
man Empire,  back  to  the  Apostles — they  are  not  entitled  to  be 
called  a  Church,  they  have  no  claim  to  the  promises  of  the  Gos- 
pel, and  no  interest  in  the  covenant  of  grace. 

On  the  other  hand,  an  "  episcopal  body,"  may  "  err  in  their 
living,  manner  of  ceremonies,  and  in  matters  of  faith  ;  vainly  in- 
vent doctrines  repugnant  to  the  Word  of  God,"  introduce  "  idol- 
atries, superstitions,  blasphemous  fables,  and  dangerous  deceits," 
and  yet  find  a  full  atonement  for  all,  in  the  fact  that  its  ministry 
is,  or  claims  to  be,  in  a  certain  line  of  outward  succession.  Its 
covenant  with  life  and  peace  is  unbroken,  because,  forsooth,  pa- 
ganized priests  who  teach  these  heresies,  and  outrage  the  adorable 
Trinity  by  their  idolatries,  their  monstrous  usurpations  of  Divine 
prerogatives,  and  their  prohibited  oblations,  claim  to  be  lineally 
descended  from  the  Apostles.  This  is  the  logic  of  the  Pastoral 
Letter.  It  is  painful,  and  to  me  a  sore  humiliation,  to  find  the 
chosen  head  of  our  Church,  whom  I  have  always  respected  and 
loved,  not  only  identifying  himself  with  the  views  of  such  a  party, 
but  seeking  to  force  their  apparent  indorsement  upon  all  his  clergy. 

We  shall  find  the  preceding  observations  fully  sustained  by  a 
careful  examination  of  the  statements  and  inferences  of  the  Letter, 


9 

and  by  a  comparison  of  them  with  the  language  of  our  standards 
and  the  history  of  our  Church.  Before  proceeding  to  this  exami- 
nation, the  introductory  observations  of  the  Pastoral  call  for  a 
passing  remark.  Although  the  letter  is  issued  on  the  hypothesis 
that  its  strictures  are  applicable  to  "  but  few  among  a  large  num- 
ber of  our  clergymen  in  the  Diocese,"  I  suspect  that  if  their  his- 
tory was  known,  "  many  "  would  be  found  wanting  when  weighed 
in  such  a  balance,  and  "  but  few  "  discovered  who  would  precisely 
fit  the  Procrustean  bed  here  provided  for  them.  However  this 
may  be,  there  are,  doubtless,  "a  few  clergymen  in  the  Diocese 
who  are  conscious  to  themselves  that  there  has  been  something  in 
their  official  proceedings  which  may  have  had  some  influence  in 
suggesting  these  present  observations,"  although  they  are  not 
able  to  perceive  "  their  propriety,  and  even  necessity."  As  these 
few  men  are  not  only  Christian  gentlemen,  some  of  them  of  long 
experience  and  wide  reputation,  but  also  personal  friends  of  the 
Bishop,  who  were  instrumental  in  placing  him  in  his  present  po- 
sition, and  have  stood  firmly  in  his  defence  when  others  caballed 
and  intrigued  to  oppose  him,  it  certainly  would  have  been  singu- 
lar, to  say  the  least,  if  he  had  failed  in  "  personal  kindness  and 
manifestation  of  personal  respect  and  regard  toward  them."  Any 
thing  less  than  this,  toward  any  of  his  clergy,  would  have  been 
unbecoming  his  high  position  and  sacred  relations. 

The  fact  that  "  his  administration  of  the  Diocese  had  not  been 
marked  by  any  disposition,  on  his  part,  to  impose  needless  re- 
straints upon  the  official  conduct  of  the  clergy,  or  to  interfere  in 
any  way,  without  necessity,  with  their  freedom  of  action,"  height- 
ened, each  year,  their  regard  for  and  confidence  in  him  as  a  ruler, 
and  their  respect  and  affection  for  him  as  a  Christian  man.  It  is 
because  he  here  "  steps  forth  in  an  unusual "  and  uncanonical  way, 
not  only  to  make  a  striking  exception  to  this  wise  rule  which  he 
has  observed  for  a  decade  of  years,  but  to  set  forth  "  the  disci- 
pline of  Christ  as  the  Lord  hath  "  not  "  commanded,"  and  as  this 
Church  has  not  "  received  the  same,"  that  many  "  yield  with  re- 
luctance to  the  sense  of  duty  which  impels  them,"  for  the  first 
time,  to  take  a  position  antagonistic  to  their  Diocesan.  "  Upon  a 
candid  and  serious  review  of  their  obligations  and  duties,"  they 
are  unable  to  "  change  their  view  of  what  is  right  for  them  to  do 
as  Ministers  of  this  Church."  They  are  as  honestly  desirous  as 
any  can  be  to  "  throw  the  influence  of  their  judgment  and  example 
upon  the  side  of  order  and  unity  in  their  own  fold,"  but  they  can 
not  consent,  for  the  sake  of  securing  a  constrained  outward  uni- 


10 

formity,  to  sacrifice  what  they  regard  as  vital  principles,  and  put 
a  yoke  upon  themselves  and  their  brethren  which  our  Church  has 
never  imposed,  which  they  never  assumed,  and  which  few  would 
be  willing  or  able  to  bear. 

The  Pastoral  Letter  proceeds,  after  the  introduction  thus  re- 
ferred to,  to  present "  some  of  the  principles  and  laws  of  the  (our  ?) 
Church ;"  citing,  first,  the  declaration  subscribed  before  ordina- 
tion : 

1.  "I  do  believe  the  Holy  Scriptures  to  be  the  Word  of  God, 
and  to  contain  all  things  necessary  to  salvation  :  and  I  do  solemnly 
engage  to  conform  to  the  Doctrines  and  Worship  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States."    The  Letter  next  quotes 
from  the  ordination  service  the  folio  wins:: 

O 

2.  "  Will  you  then  give  your  faithful  diligence  always  so  to  min- 
ister the  Doctrine  and  Sacraments,  and  the  Discipline  of  Christ, 
as  the  Lord  hath  commanded,  and  as  this  Church  hath  received 
the  same,  according  to  the  Commandments  of  God ;  so  that  you 
may  teach  the  people  committed  to  your  Cure  and  Charge  with 
all  diligence  to  keep  and  observe  the  same  ?" 

Answer.  "  I  will  do  so,  by  the  help  of  the  Lord." 
It  would  seem  almost  incredible,  that,  without  inquiry,  author- 
ity, or  proof,  a  Bishop  would  publicly  and  officially  charge  a  num- 
ber of  his  clergy  with  a  disregard  and  violation  of  these  solemn 
engagements  and  vows.  This  is  the  natural  inference  of  the  pub- 
lic. While  there  is  no  hint  elsewhere,  in  the  Letter,  that  this  was 
not  designed,  there  is  much  to  confirm  this  inference. 

3.  Then  follows :  "  Let  us  now  see  what  are  the  Doctrines,  Dis- 
cipline, and  Worship  of  this  Church." 

One  would  naturally  expect  a  learned  divine  to  turn  first  to 
the  Creeds  and  Articles  in  quest  of  the  doctrines,  to  the  Rubrics 
and  Canons  for  the  Discipline,  and  to  the  various  Offices  of  devo- 
tion for  the  Worship  of  our  Church.  There  are  points  of  contact 
and  relationship,  it  is  true,  in  which  these  sources  of  authority  are 
sometimes  intermingled  and  conjoined.  The  Creeds  and  Articles, 
in  a  general  way  cover  and  embrace  all  the  principles  that  are 
more  particularly  evolved  and  illustrated  in  the  Offices,  Rubrics, 
and  Canons.  The  Offices  incidentally  teach' doctrines,  and  the 
Rubrics  and  Canons  in  the  same  way,  often  confirm  or  illustrate 
the  principles  that  are  set  forth  in  the  Articles,  Creeds,  and  Offices. 
But  to  ascertain  and  settle  definitely  the  Doctrines  of  our  Church, 
we  go  first  to  the  Creeds  and  Articles.  For  this  purpose,  their 
statements  are  supreme.  These,  however,  are  entirely  overlooked 


11 

by  the  Bishop,  who  is  in  quest  of  our  Doctrine  in  regard  to  what 
constitutes  the  visible  Church,  and  also  ministerial  authority  in 
that  body.  The  principles  involved  in  the  answer  to  these  inquir- 
ies are  obviously  all  that  he  is  here  contending  for.  This  is  plainly 
seen  in  his  distinction  between  the  Presbyterian  and  the  Greek 
churches,  and  his  treatment  of  each.  He  has  a  theory  in  regard  to 
both  these  questions,  which  makes  a  certain  outward  organization 
"  the  Church,"  and  a  ministry  episcopally  constituted  and  derived, 
its  only  lawful  ministry.  He  here  sets  it  forth,  both  positively  in 
regard  to  our  own  and  the  Greek  Church,  and  negatively  in  re- 
gard to  "  non-episcopal  bodies,"  and  claims  that  our  Worship  and 
^Discipline  were  designed  to  teach  this  exclusive  theory,  for  con- 
fessedly it  is  not  found  in  the  Creeds  or  Articles. 

The  Apostles'  Creed  sets  forth,  as  an  article  of  faith,  "  the  holy 
Catholic  Church,  the  Communion  of  Saints,"  and  the  Nicene 
Creed, "  one  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church ;"  but,  as  non-Episco- 
palians believe  them  as  unreservedly  as  we  do,  and  as  the  Bishop 
is  in  search  of  points  of  difference  between  us,  which  will  "  erect 
an  effectual  barrier  between  "  us  and  them,  he  naturally  passes 
this  by,  as  containing  nothing  to  his  purpose.  He  treats  the  Ar- 
ticles in  the  same  way,  doubtless  for  the  same  reason,  although 
they  have  formally  set  forth  our  doctrines  on  this  subject,  in  the 
same  language,  for  three  hundred  years. 

The  Nineteenth  Article  defines  "  the  visible  Church  "  in  these 
words : 

"  The  visible  Church  of  Christ  is  a  congregation  of  faithful  men, 
in  the  which  the  pure  Word  of  God  is  preached,  and  the  Sacra- 
ments be  duly  ministered  according  to  Christ's  ordinance,  in  all 
those  things  that  of  necessity  are  requisite  to  the  same. 

"  As  the  Church  of  Jerusalem,  Alexandria,  and  Antioch,  have 
erred;  so  also  the  Church  of  Home  hath  erred,  not  only  in  their 
living  and  manner  of  Ceremonies,  but  also  in  matters  of  Faith." 
(How  unlike  some  of  our  modern  definitions !) 

No  natural  and  honest  interpretation  can  find  a  feature  in  it 
which  is  wanting  in  any  of  the  orthodox  non-Episcopal  churches. 
They  accept  it  as  their  description  of  the  visible  Church,  and  no 
one  denies  their  full  conformity  to  all  the  definition  requires.  It 
emanated  from,  and  was  designed  to  represent  no  narrow  sectarian 
views.  It  is  as  Catholic  as  the  Creeds,  as  liberal  as  the  spirit  of 
the  New  Testament. 

What  is  the  plain,  natural,  grammatical  sense  of  this  language  ? 
We  search  in  vain  for  the  slightest  allusion  to  Episcopacy,  or  any 


12 

particular  form  of  outward  government.  Standing  by  itself,  no 
human  ingenuity  could  pervert  or  torture  it  into  an  indorsement 
of  the  exclusive  validity  of  Episcopal  orders ;  much  less  could  it 
be  compelled,  by  any  possible  construction,  to  teach  such  a  doc- 
trine. Even  if  it  were  as  historically  true,  as  it  is  historically 
false,  that  the  framers  of  this  Article  held  this  narrow  theory,  in 
the  way  of  private  opinion  ;  no  honest  and  unprejudiced  mind  can 
fail  to  perceive  that  they  did  not  venture  to  set  it  forth  as  the 
doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England.  That  must  present  a  defini- 
tion which  is  scriptural,  comprehensive,  and  catholic. 

The  Article,  accordingly,  is  as  faithful  a  description  of  most  of 
the  orthodox  "  non-Episcopal  bodies,"  as  it  is  of  own  Church. 
Every  part  and  parcel  of  the  definition  applies  to  them  as  well  as 
to  us.  Nothing  is  more  "  evident "  to  any  one  acquainted  with 
the  history  of  the  Reformation  and  the  views  of  the  Reformers, 
than  that  their  individual  opinions  were  as  liberal  as  the  standards 
they  established.  If  any  deny  this,  it  is  worse  than  useless ;  it  is 
a  foolish  waste  of  time  to  argue  with  them.  They  would  deny 
any  historical  fact  which  did  not  happen  to  suit  their  purpose. 

The  language  of  the  Article  teaches,  what  its  framers  believed, 
what  they  acted  upon,  and  what  they  designed  to  impose  upon 
the  conscience  of  every  man  who,  "  with  all  the  solemnities  of  an 
oath,"  promises  "  so  to  minister  the  doctrine  of  Christ  as  the  Lord 
hath  commanded,  and  as  this  Church  hath  received  the  same." 
Wherever  a  minister  of  this  Church  finds  a  society  of  Christian 
people,  acknowledging  Christ  as  their  common  Lord,  professing 
the  true  faith,  officered  by  a  ministry  which  they  recognize,  and 
incorporated  under  the  due  administration  of  the  sacraments, 
there  he  is  bound,  by  his  ordination  vows,  to  recognize  a  true 
Church.  These  "  non-episcopal  bodies "  believe  in  the  creeds, 
and  even  in  the  doctrines  taught  in  the  Thirty-nine  Articles,  as 
honestly  and  firmly  as  they  are  held  by  our  own  people  and  clergy. 
They  have  a  ministry  which  preaches  what  we  must  admit  to  be 
the  true  faith,  if  we  hold  it  ourselves ;  and  also  which  is  compe- 
tent to  the  due  administration  of  the  sacraments,  unless  we  deny 
that  many  of  our  bishops  and  clergy,  and  a  large  portion  of  our 
laity,  have  ever  been  baptized.  Next  to  preaching  the  Gospel, 
baptism  is  the  highest  official  and  ministerial  act  known  to  the 
visible  Church.  It  is  administered  once  for  all.  It  was  enjoined 
upon  his  Apostles  by  our  Lord  as  an  essential  and  distinguishing 
part  of  their  ministerial  work ;  it  is  laid  down  repeatedly  as  of 
universal  and  perpetual  obligation;  it  constitutes  its  recipients 


13 

members  of  the  visible  fold  of  Christ,  and  guarantees  to  them  all 
the  privileges  and  advantages  of  that  relation,  whatever  they  may 
be.  It  is  nowhere  declared  in  Scripture  or  in  our  standards,  that 
it  can  be  administered  by  any  but  a  lawful  minister  of  the  visible 
Church.  It  lies  at  the  very  foundation  of  the  visibility  of  the 
Church.  The  ministerial  authority  which  is  valid  for  the  admin- 
istration of  this  ordinance,  is  certainly  as  valid  for  that  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  which  is  a  memorial  service  that  is  often  repeated,  and, 
compared  with  the  former,  is  much  less  prominent  in  the  New 
Testament,  which  nowhere  prescribes  the  presence  of  a  lawful 
ministry  in  its  celebration. 

There  might,  with  good  reason,  be  doubts,  in  some  minds, 
and  they  have  existed  in  many,  whether  according  to  this  Article, 
the  Eastern  Church  and  that  of  Rome  were  properly  entitled  to 
be  called  churches  ;  but  it  leaves  the  ministers  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  no  ground  for  hesitation  or  option  in  regard  to 
the  church  status  of  those  "non-Episcopal  bodies,"  which  our 
Prayer-Book  expressly  calls  churches ;  which  Hooker  speaks  of  as 
those  "  churches  which  have  not  the  government  that  is  by  Bish- 
ops ;  which  defect,"  he  adds,  "  I  had  much  rather  lament  than  ex- 
agitate."  The  Twenty-third  Article  is  even  more  directly  to  the 
point  before  us,  although  each,  by  necessary  inference,  involves 
the  other.  This,  let  it  be  remembered,  authoritatively  sets  forth 
what  every  minister,  "  with  much  solemnity,"  professes  to  believe 
and  promises  to  teach,  in  regard  to  the  very  question  which  un- 
derlies and  is  the  foundation  of  the  Pastoral  Letter. 

Having  ascertained  our  doctrine  in  regard  to  the  essential  ele- 
ments of  the  visible  Church,  let  us  see  what  our  Church  teaches 
as  necessary  to  constitute  ministerial  authority  in  that  body.  This 
is  found  in  her  Twenty-third  Article,  "  Of  Ministering  in  the  Con- 
gregation." 

"  It  is  not  lawful  for  any  man  to  take  upon  him  the  office  of 
public  preaching,  or  ministering  the  sacraments  in  the  congrega- 
tion, before  he  be  lawfully  called  and  sent  to  execute  the  same. 
And  those  we  ought  to  judge  lawfully  called  and  sent,  which  be 
chosen  and  called  to  this  work  by  men  who  have  public  authority 
given  unto  them  in  the  congregation  to  call  and  send  ministers 
into  the  Lord's  vineyard." 

We  find  here  no  allusion  to  a  succession  in  the  ministry,  and  no 
hint  of  its  episcopal  derivation.  Comment  upon  it  can  hardly 
make  it  more  obvious  than  the  language  as  it  stands.  The  truth 
is  as  plain  on  its  face,  as  in  contemporaneous  history,  that  this 


Article  is  carefully  worded  so  as  to  acknowledge  the  validity  of 
the  ministry  of  the  Scottish  and  foreign  non-episcopal  churches. 

Archbishop  Bancroft  has  been  accused  of  inventing  the  exclu> 
sive  theory,  to  which  the  frainers  of  our  Articles  seem  to  have 
been  strangers ;  but  this  seems  hardly  consistent  with  the  fact, 
that  in  1607,  Thomas  Rogers,  his  chaplain,  published  an  Exposi- 
tion of  the  Articles,  with  this  title :  "  The  Faith,  Doctrine,  and 
Religion,  etc.,  expressed  in  Thirty-nine  Articles,  etc. ;  the  said 
Articles  analyzed  into  propositions,  and  the  propositions  proved 
to  be  agreeable  both  to  the  written  word  of  God  and  to  the  extant 
confessions  of  all  the  neighbor  churches  Christianly  reformed" 
1607.  4to. 

This  was  "  perused,  and  by  the  lawful  authority  of  the  Church 
of  England  allowed  to  be  public,"  and  all  the  parishes  in  the 
province  of  the  Archbishop  were  ordered  by  him  to  provide  it  for 
their  use.  He  finds  in  this  Article  the  following  propositions  : 

"  1.  None  publicly  may  preach  but  such  as  thereunto  are  au- 
thorized. 2.  They  must  not  be  silent  who,'  by  office,  are  bound 
to  preach.  3.  The  sacraments  may  not  be  administered  in  the  con- 
gregation but  by  a  lawful  minister.  4.  There  is  a  lawful  ministry 
in  the  Church.  5.  They  are  lawful  ministers  which  be  ordained 
by  men  lawfully  appointed  to  the  calling  and  sending  forth  of  min- 
isters. 6.  Before  ministers  are  to  be  ordained,  they  are  to  be 
chosen  and  called." 

He  then  shows  that  all  of  the  foreign  reformed  non-episcopal 
Churches  maintain  the  truth  of  all  these  propositions  in  their 
standards  of  doctrine  and  discipline.  This  not  only  confirms  the 
natural  sense  of  the  Articles,  but  proves  how  the  authorities  of 
the  Church  of  England  regarded  them.  Bishop  Burnet,  who 
stands  about  midway  in  the  history  of  the  Church  of  England,  be- 
tween the  time  of  Bancroft  and  the  present,  prepared  an  exposi- 
tion of  the  Thirty-nine  Articles,  which  was  carefully  read  and 
highly  approved  by  three  Archbishops,  several  learned  Bishops,  and 
"  a  great  many  learned  divines  of  the  Church  of  England,"  before 
it  was  published. 

This  is  the  only  work  on  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  which  is  set 
forth  to  be  studied  by  candidates  for  the  ministry  in  the  "  course 
of  ecclesiastical  studies,  established  by  the  House  of  Bishops  in 
the  Convention  of  1804,  in  pursuance  of  a  resolution  of  the  pre- 
ceding General  Convention."  It  has  the  same  authoritative  in- 
dorsement to  the  present  time.  Commenting  on  the  Article 
before  us,  the  right  reverend  author  says  : 


15 

"  If  a  company  of  Christians  find  the  public  worship  where  they 
live  to  be  so  defiled  that  they  cannot,  with  a  good  conscience,  join 
in  it,  and  if  they  do  not  know  of  any  place  to  *which  they  can  con- 
veniently go,  where  they  may  worship  God  purely  and  in  a  regu- 
lar way — if,  I  say,  such  a  body,  finding  some  that  have  been  or- 
dained, though  to  the  lower  functions,  should  submit  itself  entirely 
to  their  conduct,  or  finding  none  of  those,  should  by  a  common 
consent  desire  some  of  their  own  number  to  minister  to  them  in 
holy  things,  and  should  upon  that  beginning  grow  up  to  a  regu- 
lated constitution,     .     .     .     when  this  grows  to  a  constitution, 
and  when  it  was  begun  by  the  consent  of  a  body,  who  are  sup- 
posed to  have  an  authority  in  such  an  extraordinary  case,  what- 
ever some  hotter  spirits  have  thought  of  this  since  that  time,  yet  ice 
are  very  sure,  that  not  only  those  who  penned  the  Articles,  but  the 
body  of  this  Church  for  above  half  an  age  after,  did,  notwithstand- 
ing those  irregularities,  acknowledge  the  foreign  churches,  so  consti- 
tuted, to  be  true  churches  as  to  all  the  essentials  of  a  church,  though 
they  had  been  at  first  irregularly  formed,  and  continued  still  to  be 
in  an  imperfect  state.    And  therefore  the  general  words  in  which 
this  part  of  the  Article  is  framed,  seemed  to  have  been  designed  on 
purpose  not  to  exclude  them."     (Burnet's  Exposition  of  the  Thirty- 
'  nine  Articles,  5th  ed.  1746.) 

In  strict  accordance  with  these  views,  the  validity  of  these  non- 
Episcopal  orders  was  recognized  in  the  Church  of  England  for 
upward  of  one  hundred  years,  by  allowing  those  thus  ordained  to 
hold  livings,  to  preach,  and  to  administer  the  sacraments  in  that 
Church.  Strype,  referring  to  an  act  passed  in  the  thirteenth  year 
of  Elizabeth,  1571,  says  :  "By  this,  the  ordinations  of  the  foreign 
reformed  churches  were  made  valid,  and  those  who  had  no  other 
orders  were  made  of  the  same  capacity  with  others  to  enjoy  any 
place  in  the  ministry,  within  England,  merely  on  their  subscribing 
the  Articles."  Bishop  Cosin,  in  his  letter  to  Cordel,  writes  :  "  If  at 
any  time  a  minister,  so  ordained  in  these  French  churches,  came 
to  incorporate  himself  in  ours,  and  to  receive  a  public  charge  or 
cure  of  souls  among  us,  in  the  Church  of  England,  (as  I  have 
known  some  of  them  to  do  of  late,  and  can  instance  in  many  others 
before  my  time,)  our  bishops  did  not  reordain  him  before  they 
admitted  him  to  his  charge  ;  as  they  must  have  done  if  his  former 
ordination  in  France  had  been  void.  Nor  did  our  laws  require 
more  of  him  than  to  declare  his  public  consent  to  the  religion  re- 
ceived among  us,  and  to  subscribe  the  Articles  established." 
Bishop  Burnet  writes :  "  No  bishop  in  Scotland  did  so  much  as 


16 

desire  any  of  the  Presbyterians  to  be  reordained."  Not  a  single 
Archbishop,  from  Cranmer  to  the  present  day,  except  Laud,  and 
perhaps  Potter,  has  held  this  exclusive  theory ;  and  the  same  is 
demonstrable  of  the  leading  divines  both  of  England  and  this 
country.  The  testimony  of  Cranmer,  Parker,  Grindal,  Jewel, 
Whittingham,  Andrews,  Whitgift,  Field,  Hooker,  Bramhall,  Dan- 
evaut,  Hall,  Usher,  Tillotson,  Wake,  Seeker,  and  a  host  of  others 
on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic,  might  be  adduced  to  confirm  this 
statement.  All  this  teaching  of  the  Articles,  and  this  almost 
unanimous  consent  of  divines,  is  overlooked  by  the  advocates  of 
the  exclusive  scheme,  while  they  appeal  to  the  preface  to  the 
ordinal,  and  to  one  of  the  Canons,  to  convict  the  Articles  of  teach- 
ing false  doctrine,  or  to  prove  that  the  natural  and  commonly  re- 
ceived interpretation  of  them,  plainly  expressed  by  words  and 
actions  for  three  hundred  years,  is  erroneous,  and  a  violation  of 
principles  "  generally  deemed  sacred."  Even  granting  that  the 
authority  of  the  ordinal  and  the  Canons  on  questions  of  doctrine 
is  supreme,  I  am  unable  to  perceive  that  such  an  inference,  from 
these  premises,  is  natural,  logical,  or  necessary ;  but  as  they  stand, 
if  I  was  compelled  to  admit  that  they  could  bear  no  other  con- 
struction, I  should  feel  bound  to  reject  the  doctrine,  on  the  ground, 
that  an  inference  from  a  rubrical  and  canonical  direction  respect- 
ing the  outward  regulation  of  our  particular  branch  of  the  house- 
hold of  faith,  cannot  release  one  of  our  clergy  from  his  solemn 
obligation  to  believe  and  teach  what  he  is  persuaded  is  scriptural, 
and  plainly  set  forth  in  our  standards  of  doctrine.  In  matters  of 
doctrine,  the  offices  and  canons  must  be  subordinate  to  the  Arti- 
cles. We  shall  find  that  they  are,  in  fact,  harmonious  ;  that  the 
conclusions  of  the  Pastoral  Letter  are  forced  and  unnatural,  and 
that  in  no  other  way  can  our  Worship  and  Discipline  be  arrayed  in 
antagonism  against  our  Doctrine. 

I  have,  I  trust,  abundantly  proved  that  the  theory  of  the  exclu- 
sive validity  of  episcopal  orders  is  not  only  unsupported  by  our 
Articles,  but  that  they  plainly  contradict  it,  and  also  that  it  was 
not  the  doctrine  of  the  Reformers  or  of  the  leading  English  divines. 
ThevBishop,  therefore,  very  naturally  ignores  their  statement  of 
doctrine  on  this  question,  and  flies,  first  to  the  preface  to  the 
ordinal,  in  search  of  a  foundation  for  his  scheme,  and  then  to  the 
Canons  for  its  support.  I  quote  all  of  the  preface  which  bears 
upon  the  point  before  us  : 

"  It  is  evident  unto  all  men,  diligently  reading  Holy  Scripture 
and  ancient  authors,  that  from  the  Apostles'  time  there  have  been 


17 

these  orders  of  ministers  in  Christ's  Church — Bishops,  Priests-,  and 
Deacons.  .  .  .  And  therefore,  to  the  intent  that  these  orders 
may  be  continued,  and  reverently  used  and  esteemed  in  this 
Church,  no  man  shall  be  accounted  or  taken  to  be  a  lawful  Bishop, 
Priest,  or  Deacon,  in  this  Church,  or  suffered  to  execute  any  of  the 
said  functions,  except  he  be  called,  tried,  examined,  and  admitted 
thereunto,  according  to  the  form  hereafter  following,  or  hath  had 
Episcopal  Consecration  or  Ordination." 

The  Bishop  infers  from  this  language  that  there  can  be  no 
church  without  these  three  orders,  episcopally  derived  in  a  certain 
line  of  succession.  He  does  not  say  this  in  these  words,  but  it  is 
cited  as  an  unanswerable  argument,  that  the  exclusive  theory  is 
the  doctrine  of  our  Church.  He  might,  with  nothing  but  this 
preface  before  him,  just  as  naturally  have  inferred  the  affirmative 
as  the  negative  proposition.  The  truth  is,  it  teaches  nothing  more 
in  regard  to  the  abstract  question  of  ordination  and  ministerial 
authority  in  the  visible  Church,  than  the  historical  fact,  that  three 
orders  have  always  existed  in  it,  and  that  this  circumstance  is  suf- 
ficient to  warrant  their  continuance  in  this  particular  branch  of 
the  visible  body  of  Christ. 

Suppose  we  were  to  find  prefixed  to  the  ceremony  prescribed 
for  the  coronation  of  the  monarch  of  a  particular  kingdom,  the 
following  statement :  It  is  evident  unto  all  men  diligently  reading 
ancient  authors  and  modern  history,  that  from  the  days  of  Solo- 
mon there  have  been  kings,  who  have  ruled  among  the  nations  of 
the  earth ;  which  royal  office  has  evermore  been  held  in  such  rev- 
erend estimation,  that  no  man  might  presume  to  execute  the  same 
unless  he  were  approved  and  admitted  thereunto  by  lawful  au- 
thority. And  therefore,  to  the  intent  that  this  office  may  be  con- 
tinued and  reverently  used  and  esteemed  in  this  realm,  no  man 
shall  be  accounted  or  taken  to  be  a  lawful  king  in  this  nation,  or 
suffered  to  execute  any  of  the  functions  of  royalty  in  this  kingdom, 
except  he  first  be  duly  crowned  according  to  the  ceremony  follow- 
ing, or  has  been  duly  crowned  as  king  in  some  other  monarchy. 

I  am  ashamed  to  ask  the  question,  whether  any  man  of  com- 
mon-sense would  regard  this  as  affirming  that  there  can  be  no 
lawful  government  except  a  monarchy?  whether  it  forbids  its 
king  and  subjects  to  recognize  nations  otherwise  governed,  as 
established  states,  and  requires  them  to  regard  their  officers  as 
pretenders  and  usurpers  ?  It  is  simply  monstrous  ;  and  yet  this 
is  precisely  the  logic  of  those  who  infer  the  exclusive  dogma  from 
the  preface  in  contemplation.  When,  we  add  to  this  plain  as- 


18 

sumption  (for  the  relation  of  the  premise  to  the  conclusion  is  not 
sufficiently  intimate  to  call  it  an  inference)  the  fact,  that  no  such 
notion  could  possibly  have  been  in  the  minds  of  those  who  framed 
and  adopted  it,  I  am  utterly  unable  to  understand  how  an  intelli- 
gent man  can  regard  it  as  in  any  way  touching  the  abstract  ques- 
tion, which  is  definitely  determined  by  the  Articles.     On  its  face, 
in  the  light  of  history,  reason,  and  common-sense,  it  is  simply  a 
rule  for  the  government  of  one  particular  Church,  in  regard  to  a 
matter  of  outward  order,  and  a  justification  of  it  by  precedents. 
It  is  nothing  more.     Some  claim  that  the  enactments  of  Parlia- 
ment in  1662  are  decisive  as  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land.    The  truth  is,  "  The  Act  of  Uniformity,"  requiring  all  ad- 
mitted to  any  ecclesiastical  promotion  or  dignity  in  the  Church  of 
England  to  have  had  episcopal  ordination ;  and  the  addition  at 
the  same  time  to  the  preface  under  consideration,  of  the  words, 
"  or  hath  had  episcopal  ordination  or  consecration,"  proves  noth- 
ing as  to  this  question.     It  implies,  what  history  records,  that  up 
to  this  time  there  had  been  no  exclusion  from  the  ministrations  of 
the  Church  of  England  of  the  ministers  of  the  foreign  non-epis- 
copal churches,  and  that  a  converted  Romish  priest  was  no  longer 
required  to  be  reordained  to  enter  her  ministry.    The  act  was  one 
of  expediency  and  self-defence,  and  was  passed  "  at  a  time  when 
the  benefices  of  the  Church  were  filled  by  men  attached  to  the 
Presbyterian  form  of  church  government,  and  the  Episcopal  min- 
isters ejected  from  them."     In  the  following  section  of  the  same 
Act,  there  is  a  distinct  recognition  of  the  "  non-episcopal  bodies  " 
thus  excluded  as  "  the  foreign  reformed  churches."     No  change 
was  made  or  proposed  in  the  formal  declarations  of  the  Articles, 
because  none  was  desired  or  intended  in  regard  to  the  doctrines 
of  the  Church.   It  was  a  civil  act,  dictated  by  state  policy.    Con- 
sequently, since  that  period  the  Church  status  of  these  bodies 
and  the  validity  of  their  ministry  have  been  recognized  by  the 
Church  of  England  as  before,  with  the  exception  of  the  restric- 
tions imposed  by  the  Act  of  Uniformity.     Outside  of  the  civil 
jurisdiction  of  England,  "The  Church  Missionary  Society,"  "The 
Venerable  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel,"  and  "  The 
Society  for  Promoting  Christian  Knowledge,"  some  of  them  un- 
der  the  direction  of  the  entire  Bench  of  Bishops,  and  others  un- 
der the  sanction  of  a  portion  of  them,  have  for  more  than  a 
hundred  years  sent  missionaries  to  "teach  all  nations,  preach  the 
Gospel  to  them,  and  baptize  them,"  who  have  had  no  other  than 
Presbyterian  ordination.     This,  in  their  estimation,  gave  full  v.v 


19 

lidity  to  their  ministerial  acts,  although  it  did  not  entitle  them  to 
assume  the  character  and  sustain  the  relations  of  a  minister  in  the 
Established  Church  of  England.  Not  only  the  practice,  but  the 
writings  of  her  leading  divines  show  that  the  Act  of  Uniformity, 
and  the  addition  of  the  concluding  sentence  to  the  preface,  were 
not  regarded  as  affecting  the  doctrinal  views  of  that  Church  on 
this  question,  as  they  were  "  formally  and  authoritatively "  set 
forth  in  the  Article.  A  catena  of  testimony  to  this  effect  is  easily 
found. 

Bishop  Stillingfleet,  in  his  Irenicum — "a  book,"  says  Bish- 
op White,  "  much  talked  against,  but  never  answered  " — main- 
tains, with  Hooker,  of  the  Elizabethan  period,  that  the  particular 
form  of  church  government,  however  important,  is  unessential ; 
that  "the  episcopal  form  is  not  founded  upon  any  unalterable 
divine  right,"  and  points  to  the  fact  that  the  stoutest  champions 
for  episcopacy  confess  "  that  ordination  performed  by  presbyters 
in  case  of  necessity  is  valid." 

Dean  Sherlock  uses  this  language : 

"  I  do  allow  episcopacy  to  be  an  apostolical  institution,  and  the 
truly  ancient  and  catholic  government  of  the  Church,  of  which 
more  hereafter  ;  but  yet  in  this  very  book  I  prove  industriously 
and  at  large,  that  in  case  of  necessity,  when  bishops  cannot  be 
had,  a  church  may  be  a  truly  catholic  church,  and  such  as  we  may 
and  ought  to  communicate  with,  without  bishops,  in  vindication  of 
some  foreign  reformed  churches  who  have  none ;  and  therefore  I 
do  not  make  episcopacy  so  absolutely  necessary  to  catholic  com- 
munions as  to  unchurch  all  churches  which  have  it  not."  "  The 
Church  of  England  does  not  deny  but  that,  in  case  of  necessity, 
the  ordination  of  presbyters  may  be  valid."  ( Vindic.  of  some 
Prof.  Principles,  etc.,  reprinted  in  Gibson's  Preserv.  vol.  iii.  pp. 
410,  432.) 

Dr.  Claget,  in  his  Notes  of  the  Church,  writes : 

"  The  Church  of  England  doth  not  unchurch  those  parts  of 
Christendom  that  hold  the  unity  of  the  faith." 

Archbishop  Wake,  in  1719,  says:  "I  bless  God  that  I  wras 
born  and  have  been  bred  in  an  Episcopal  Church,  which,  I  am 
convinced,  has  been  the  government  established  in  the  Christian 
Church  from  the  very  times  of  the  Apostles.  But  I  should  be 
unwilling  to  affirm  that  Avhere  the  ministry  is  not  episcopal  there 
is  no  true  church,  nor  any  true  administration  of  the  sacraments. 
Very  many  there  are  among  us  who  are  very  zealous  for  the 


20 

Episcopacy,  and  yet  they  dare  not  go  so  far  as  to  annul  the  ordi- 
nances of  God  performed  by  any  other  ministry." 

Archbishop  Seeker,  in  1764,  writes  as  follows:  "The  Church 
of  England  pretends  not  indeed  to  be  the  Catholic  Church,  but  is 
undoubtedly  a  sound,  excellent  member  of  it.  Christ's  Church  is 
the  whole  number  of  those  who  believe  in  him.  .  .  .  Our  in- 
clination is  to  live  in  friendship  with  all  the  Protestant  churches. 
"NVe  assist  and  protect  those  on  the  continent  of  Europe  as  well  as 
we  are  able.  We  show  our  regard  to  that  of -Scotland  as  often 
.-is  we  have  an  opportunity."  In  one  of  his  sermons  he  employs 
this  language  : 

"  Supposing  we  had  even  acted  without,  and  separated  from, 
our  Church  governors,  as  our  Protestant  brethren  abroad  were 
forced  to  do  ;  was  there  not  a  cause  ?  When  the  Word  of  God 
was  hidden  from  men,  .  .  .  when  Church  authority,  by  sup- 
porting such  things  as  these,  "became  inconsistent  with  the  ends 
for  which  it  was  established,  what  remedy  icas  there  but  to  throw 
it  off  and  form  new  establishments  f  If  in  these  there  were  any 
irregularities,  they  were  the  faults  of  those  who  forced  men  into 
them,  and  are  of  no  consequence  in  comparison  with  the  reason 
that  made  a  change  necessary"  (Serm.  vol.  vi.  pp.  400,  401.) 

Bishop  Tomline,  still  later,  in  his  learned  exposition  of  the 
Thirty-nine  Articles,  in  the  spirit  of  Burnet,  quoted  in  a  former 
page,  in  regard  to  the  same  point,  says  : 

"  I  readily  acknowledge  that  there  is  no  precept  in  the  New 
Testament  which  commands  that  every  church  should  be  governed 
by  bishops.  No  church  can  exist  without  some  government ;  but 
though  there  must  be  rules  and  orders  for  the  proper  discharge 
of  the  offices  of  public  worship,  though  there  must  be  fixed  regu- 
lations concerning  the  appointment  of  ministers ;  and  though  a 
subordination  among  them  is  expedient  in  the  highest  degree,  yet 
it  does  not  follow  that  all  these  things  must  be  precisely  the  samo 
in  every  Christian  country  ;  they  may  vary  with  the  other  vary- 
ing circumstances  of  human  society,  with  the  extent  of  a  coun- 
try, the  manner  of  its  inhabitants,  the  nature  of  its  civil  govern- 
ment, and  many  other  peculiarities  which  might  be  specified.  As 
it  has  not  pleased  our  Almighty  Father  to  prescribe  any  particu- 
lar form  of  civil  government  for  the  security  of  temporal  com- 
forts to  his  rational  creatures,  so  neither  has  he  prescribed  any 
particular  form  of  ecclesiastical  polity  as  absolutely  necessary  to 
the  attainment  of  eternal  happiness.  .  .  .  As  the  Scriptures 
do  not  prescribe  any  definite  form  of  church  government,  so  they 


21 

contain  no  directions  concerning  the  establishment  of  a  power  by 
which  ministers  are  to  be  admitted  to  their  sacred  office."  And, 
therefore,  though  he  advocates  episcopal  ordination  as  "  instituted 
by  the  Apostles,"  he  does  not  maintain  it  as  necessary.  (Expos, 
of  Art.  xxiii. ;  ed.  1799,  pp.  396,  398.) 

Volumes  of  a  similar  character  could  be  cited,  from  English 
divines,  since  the  addition  to  the  Ordinal,  which  only  affected 
those  who  had  been  already  episcopally  ordained. 

It  is  assuming  too  much  to  say,  in  a  total  disregard  of  the  Ar- 
ticles, and  of  all  this  history,  that  in  the  preface  to  the  Ordinal, 
"  the  Church  sets  forth  her  principles  and  her  law  in  regard  to  the 
sacred  ministry  in  the  most  clear,  formal,  and  authoritative  way." 
She  does  nothing  of  the  kind.  It  would  be  difficult  to  find  in  the 
same  compass  more  unfounded  assumptions  thau  this  passage  con- 
tarns.  The  truth  is,  it  is  not  set  forth  by  "  the  Church"  but  by 
our  Church,  which  never  claims  to  be  " the  Church"  It  was  not 
designed  to  teach  the  principles  and  the  laics  of  the  Church,  but 
to  lay  down  a  rule  for  the  outward  government,  in  a  single  parti- 
cular, of  OUR  CHURCH.  It  says  nothing  in  regard  to  the  sacred 
ministry  of  the  Church,  it  merely  states  what  is  required  to  be- 
come ministers  in  OUR  CHURCH.  It  is  "  clear,  formal,  and  author- 
itative," for  that  specific  purpose,  and  for  no  other.  It  is  a  rule 
of  discipline  for  ourselves,  in  distinction  from  other  churches,  not 
an  enunciation  of  general  principles  or  of  abstract  doctrine. 

We  have  shown  that  the  Preface  to  the  Ordinal  teaches  noth- 
ing, and  was  not  designed  to  teach  any  thing,  in  regard  to  the 
abstract  question  of'  the  Church  or  the  ministry. 

It  does  plainly  declare,  as  the  law  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States,  that  those  who  have  not  had  epis- 
copal ordination  shall  not  "  be  accounted,  or  taken  to  be  lawful 
ministers  "  therein,  nor  "  suffered  to  execute  any  of  the  functions 
of  a  bishop,  priest,  or  deacon,"  in  this  particular  denomination. 
This  alone,  would  seem  to  imply  that  ministers  of  the  Greek,  Rom- 
ish, English,  Methodist,  and  Moravian  churches,  having  been 
episcopally  ordained,  may  lawfully  execute  these  functions  in  this 
body.  (It  is  quite  an  instructive  fact,  that  neither  in  the  Ordinal 
nor  in  the  Canons  is  any  allusion  made  to  Episcopal  succession. 
It  is  implied  from  our  law  and  services  that  the  ministry  is  to  be 
transmitted  on  that  principle,  but  nothing  more.)  If  there  were 
no  canonical  provisions  to  limit  or  explain  it,  this  would  be_a 
natural  inference.  But  Canon  ii.  Title  i.,  if  it  applies  to  minis- 
ters at  all,  shuts  them  all  out,  declaring :  "  No  person  shall  be 


22 

permitted  to  officiate  in  any  congregation  of  this  Church,  without 
first  producing  the  evidence  that  he  is  a  minister  thereof."  Ac- 
cording to  the  terms  of  the  Ordinal,  a  vestry  might  occasionally 
invite  a  Methodist,  or  a  clergyman  of  the  Church  of  England,  to 
"  execute  the  functions  "  of  a  priest  or  deacon  in  a  particular 
church.  According  to  this  rule,  thus  applied,  both  are  alike  ex- 
cluded until  they  have  complied  with  the  requirements  of  the 
Canon  ix.  Title  L,  "  Of  the  admission  of  ministers  ordained  by 
bishops  not  in  communion  with  this  Church." 

With  this  construction,  if  there  is  any  doubt  as  to  the  kind  of 
ministers  that  are  excluded  by  the  Ordinal,  that  uncertainty  is  re- 
moved by  the  Canon.    Uniting  the  two,  we  find  that  "no  person 
is  permitted  to  officiate  in  any  congregation  of  this  Church,  or 
execute  any  of  the  functions  of  a  lawful  bishop,  priest,  or  deacon 
therein,  who  is  not  a  minister  thereof."     This  language  seems 
plain.     "What  is  its  natural,  obvious  meaning  ?    The  answers  will 
vary  with  the  preconceived  views  of  those  who  make  them.  This 
is  natural,  if  not  inevitable.     Some  would  instinctively  recoil  from 
a  construction  which  to  them  would  appear  to  violate  the  law  of 
Christian  courtesy  and   the  spirit  of  the  Gospel,  condemn  the 
formally  declared  principles  as  Avell  as  the  frequent  practice  of 
their  own  Church,  and  place  a  stumbling-block.in  their  own  way, 
as  well  as  prove  offensive  to  others.     They  would  naturally  sup- 
pose that  the  most  liberal  interpretation  the  language  could  fairly 
bear  should  be  given  to  it.     Others,  of  different  temperament 
and  habit,  desirous  of  confirming  an  exclusive  theory  which  they 
have  adopted,  long  and  fondly  cherished,  and  consistently  main- 
tained, would  as  naturally  limit  it  to  as  rigid  and  stringent  a  con- 
struction as  the  terms  will  permit.    To  illustrate  this  proposition, 
as  well  as  the  Canon,  let  us  take  a  case  in  regard  to  which  the 
mind  is  unbiassed  by  any  prejudice  or  self-interest.     Let  us  sup- 
pose that  the  act  of  incorporation,  or  charter  of  a  particular  sem- 
inary of  learning,  provides  that  its  officers  shall  be  a  President, 
Professors,  and  Tutors,  and  that  no  man  shall  be  accounted  or 
taken  to  be  a  lawful  President,  Professor,  or  Tutor  in  this  insti- 
tution, or  suffered  to  execute  any  of  the  said  functions,  except  he 
be  admitted  thereunto  by  the  Board  of  Trustees ;  and,  further, 
that  the  Trustees  and  Faculty  enact  a  by-law,  declaring  that  no 
person  shall  officiate  in  any  department  of  this  institution  unless 
he  is  an  officer  thereof.     Would  this  be  regarded,  by  any  unpre- 
judiced person  as  prohibiting  an  officer's  invitation  of  a  learned 
professor  of  another  institution,  to  be  present  in  his  recitation- 


23 

room  on  some  special  occasion,  which,  in  no  way  interfered  with 
the  prescribed  routine  of  duty,  and  read  a  lecture  to  his  class  on 
some  special  subject  ?  Would  this  prohibit  the  loaning  of  the 
lecture-room,  "  at  a  time  when  it  was  not  required  for  the  ordi- 
nary use  of"  the  institution,  to  an  officer  of  another  seminary,  for 
a  specific  purpose,  and  the  attendance  of  its  officers  and  stu- 
dents ?  Would  it  be  unlawful  under  such  a  rule  for  an  officer,  in 
case  of  sickness  or  under  any  emergency,  to  invite  a  suitable  per- 
son, not  an  officer  of  the  institution,  to  supply  temporarily  his 
place  ?  Would  this  be  legally  and  technically  "  officiating  in  one 
of  the  departments  "  of  the  institution  ?  The  answer  is  apparent. 
If  we  apply  the  common  principles  of  interpretation  to  this  Canon, 
we  must  give  it  a  still  more  liberal  construction. 

It  is  generally  conceded  that  the  section  under  consideration 
was  originally  designed  to  apply  to  impostors,  and  the  section 
following  to  persons  under  ecclesiastical  discipline.  The  title  of 
the  Canon,  "  Of  persons  not  ministers  officiating,"  confirms  this 
interpretation.  The  Canons  elsewhere  call  clergymen  of  other 
churches — non-Episcopal  as  well  as  those  ordained  by  bishops — 
" ministers"  As  this  Canon  applies  to  those  who  are  not 
ministers,  it  very  properly  forbids,  not  ministers,  but  "  persons" 
falsely  claiming  to  be  ministers  of  this  Church,  officiating  in  any 
congregation  of  the  same. 

Again,  it  has  never  been  considered  unlawful  for  a  layman  to 
read  the  service  and  a  sermon  in  any  of  these  congregations.  Is 
this  "  officiating  or  executing  ministerial  functions  in  this  Church"  ? 
Obviously  not  in  the  sense  prohibited  by  the  Canon  and  the  Or- 
dinal. The  idea  prevails  that  this  is  only  lawful  when  the  lay 
reader  has  obtained  a  license  to  do  so  from  the  Bishop,  or,  where 
there  is  no  Bishop,  from  the  standing  committee  of  the  Diocese. 
This,  however,  applies  only  to  candidates  for  orders,  who,  as  semi- 
ecclesiastics,  are  subject  to  episcopal  supervision  and  canonical 
rule.  Nearly  thirty  years  ago,  under  an  erroneous  impression  in 
regard  to  the  law,  I  applied  to  Bishop  H.  U.  Onderdonk,  of 
Pennsylvania,  for  a  license  to  act  as  lay-reader  in  a  vacant  parish 
in  that  diocese.  His  reply  was :  "  You  are  not  a  candidate  for 
orders  ;  I  have  no  authority  to  grant  your  request.  You  are  at 
perfect  liberty  to  read  the  service  in  any  congregation  where  you 
have  the  opportunity,  and  also  such  sermons  as  you  choose."  I 
did  as  he  suggested  for  some  time,  to  regular  congregations  of 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  in  duly  consecrated  edifices, 
both  in  that  diocese  and  in  New-Jersey.  I  was  not  a  "  minister." 


14 

I  was  not  even  a  candidate  for  orders,  acting  under  a  bishop's 
license.  I  was  simply  a  "  person,"  who,  by  the  canon,  is  forbid- 
den to  "  officiate."  I  was  not  sure  that  Bishop  Doane  knew  what 
I  had  done  until,  months  afterward,  he  thanked  me  for  the  service 
I  had  in  this  way  rendered  to  a  parish  not  three  miles  from  his 
own  residence.  I  did  what  is  often  done.  Did  I "  officiate  in 
any  congregation  of  this  Church "  ?  Did  one  of  these  Bishops 
direct  me  to  break  the  law,  and  the  other  thank  me  for  doing  it  ? 
The  truth  is,  the  Canon  was  not  originally  intended  to  apply  to 
ministers,  and  if  it  now  does,  according  to  a  large  historical  intei1- 
pretation,  it  does  not  regard  the  reading  of  the  service  and  a 
sermon,  in  an  exceptional  case,  as  "  officiating."  "  To  officiate  in 
any  congregation,"  in  the  sense  prohibited,  the  person  must  as- 
sume to  act  as  a  minister  of  this  Church,  or  perform  acts  which 
would  naturally  imply  that  he  sustained  that  relation.  May  not 
a  non-Episcopal  minister  do  that  which  it  is  lawful  for  a  layman 
to  do  ?  Where  is  the  law  that  forbids  it,  or  hints  at  such  a  pro- 
hibition ?  Even  this,  however,  in  deference,  not  to  canonical 
prohibition,  but  to  the  opposing  views  and  tastes  of  individuals, 
seems  to  have  been  avoided ;  for  no  charge  of  such  conduct  is 
made  in  the  Letter.  The  acts  complained  of  as  a  violation  of  this 
Canon  are,  loaning  our  churches  to  associations,  or  for  the  use  of 
promiscuous  congregations,  and  "  uniting  with  the  ministers  of 
other  bodies  in  the  services."  This  is  alleged  to  be  "  a  gross  in- 
novation, and  a  flagrant  violation  of  the  spirit  and  intent  of  our 
law,  and  of  the  principles  of  our  Church,  as  interpreted  by  the 
general  practice  and  the  unvarying  judgment  of  the  great  body 
of  our  divines,  both  English  and  American."  If  the  Bishop  had 
written, "  A  violation  of  the  spirit  and  intent  of  the  Laudean  and 
Hobart  party,  and  of  the  principles  of  this  school,  as  interpreted 
by  their  practice  in  England  and  America,"  no  objection  could 
reasonably  have  been  made  to  the  statement ;  but,  as  it  stands,  it 
certainly  does  not  appear  to  be  sustained,  either  by  our  standards 
of  doctrine  or  discipline,  or  by  the  history  of  our  Church  in  this 
country,  or  by  the  practice  or  views  of  the  divines  of  the  Church 
of  England.  My  own  observations,  which  extend  over  nearly 
half  a  century,  and  to  various  sections  of  the  country,  and  my 
information  from  the  former  generation,  as  well  as  from  authentic 
sources  of  history,  lead  my  mind  to  a  different  conclusion.  I 
cannot,  of  course,  know  the  full  extent  of  his  ignorance  in  regard 
to  facts  in  my  possession  ;'  but  they  certainly  do  not  warrant  the 
language  which  the  Bishop  here  employs  as  to  "  the  unvarying 


25 

judgment  of  the  great  body  of  our  divines,  both  English  and 
American." 

The  "  irregularities,"  so  called,  condemned  by  the  Pastoral 
thus  far,  are  not  declared  to  be  a  violation  of  the  letter,  but  of  the 
spirit  an(Lintent  of  the  law  and  principles  of  our  Church.  I  have 
proved,  I  trust,  that  while  the  acts  complained  of  are  in  full  har- 
mony with  our  doctrines  and  principles,  they  are  not  inconsistent 
with  the  spirit  of  our  law,  which  cannot  be  supposed  to  conflict 
with  our  doctrines  and  principles,  and  would  not  be  binding  if  it 
did.  I  need  not  waste  words  on  the  last  proposition.  The  Letter 
has,  however,  a  charge  of  a  more  serious  and  aggravated  nature, 
inasmuch  as  it  is  alleged  to  be  a  plain  violation  of  the  letter  as 
well  as  the  spirit  of  the  law.  After  quoting  the  Canon  entitled, 
"  Of  persons  not  ministers  officiating,"  it  proceeds  : 

"Having  thus  provided  that  none  but  episcopally  ordained 
clergymen  shall  minister"  (the  Canon  says  "  officiate  ")  "  in  any 
of  her  congregations,  this  Church  next  prescribes,  with  the  utmost 
care  and  precision,  the  form  of  worship  to  which  they  are  to 
conform. 

"  In  he*  Twentieth  Canon,  (Title  I.,)  she  ordains  :  '  That  every 
minister  shall,  before  all  sermons  and  lectures,  and  on  all  other 
occasions  of  public  worship,  use  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  as 
the  same  is  or  maybe  established  by  the  authority  of  the  General 
Convention  of  this  Church  ;  and  in  performing  such  service  no 
other  prayers  shall  be  used  than  those  prescribed  by  the  said 


If  the  foregoing  had  not  been  written  under  the  influence  of 
preconceived  views,  the  pen  could  hardly  have  been  restrained 
from  adding,  at  the  conclusion  of  the  first  paragraph,  after  "  con- 
form "  —  when  officiating  in  said  congregations.  It  would  never 
have  occurred  to  me  that  the  writer  did  not  mean  to  imply  this, 
if  I  had  not  read  in  another  part  of  the  Letter  the  following  facts 
set  forth  as  a  violation  of  this  Canon-:  "  Ministers  of  this  Church 
went  to  non-Episcopal  places  of  worship  and  preached,  without 
the  due  performance  of  the  devotional  service  enjoined  by  the 
law  of  the  Church."  This  puts  a  new  aspect  upon  the  charge, 
The  Canon  has  a  broad  application,  while  its  spirit  is  narrow. 
Though  I  had  heard  it  occasionally  from  ill-informed  non-Episco- 
palians before,  as  a  proof  of  our  illiberality  —  to  which  I  uniform- 
ly replied  that  such  a  notion  was  a  proof  of  their  ignorance  and 
prejudice  —  it  is  the  first  time  I  ever  heard  this  construction  from 
a  minister  of  our  Church.  The  observation  and  knowledge  of  the 


26 

Bishop  can  hardly  be  so  limited  as  to  have  concealed  from  him 
the  fact,  that  a  usage,  by  no  means  limited,  has,  with  obvious  pro- 
priety and  naturalness,  interpreted  this  Canon  as  applying  to  the 
worship  which  our  Church  provides  and  secures  to  her  own  con- 
gregations, and  as  a  law  to  her  ministers  in  conducting  that  wor- 
ship ;  but  not  as  assuming  to  legislate  for  non-Episcopal  bodies  in 
this  matter,  nor  as  designed  to  forbid  her  ministers  to  preach, 
except  to  such  congregations  as  will  adopt  and  can  use  this  pre- 
scribed service  to  edification. 

According  to  this  view,  ministers  have  felt  at  liberty  to  consult 
their  taste  and  be  governed  by  their  views  of  expediency  as-  to 
the  use  of  the  Prayer-Book,  when  officiating  "  in  any  congrega- 
tion "  not  "  of  this  Church."  Such  conduct  has  never  been  de- 
clared a  violation  of  the  Canon  by  any  proper  authority.  The 
Bishop  admits  this,  but  argues  that  because  it  has  not  been  ar- 
raigned and  censured,  we  are  not  to  infer  that  it  has  "  obtained 
authoritative  recognition  in  the  (this  ?)  Church."  It  would  be 
well  to  remember  that  general  usage  makes  common  law,  and 
that  if  this  does  not  amount  to  an  "  authoritative  recognition,"  it 
is  a  practice  which  is  so  general  and  of  such  long  duration  that 
it  may,  at  least,  be  regarded  as  lawful,  until  it  has  obtained  an 
'•  authoritative"  condemnation. 

We  have,  however,  one  case  which  may  properly  claim  to  be 
authoritative  in  regard  to  the  construction  of  this  Canon.  A  few 
months  since,  a  specific  charge  was  formally  made  against  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Cracraft,  of  Ohio,  upon  which  he  was  canonically  "  pre- 
sented "  to  the  Standing  Committee  of  that  Diocese  for  examina- 
tion and  trial  in  these  words :  "  Preaching  in  a  Congregational 
church,  without  using  the  Prayer-Book  or  vestment." 

For  the  credit  of  our  Church,  it  ought  to  be  stated  in  this  con- 
nection that,  although  the  practice  which  is  here  charged  as  an 
offence,  punishable  by  law,  is  quite  common,  this  is  believed  to 
be  the  only  instance  in  which  a  man  has  been  canonically  arraign- 
ed for  the  act ;  and  also  that,  in  this  case,  the  accusation  seems 
to  have  been  made  more  for  the  purpose  of  annoying  and  perse- 
cuting the  accused  person  than  with  any  idea  of  proving  him  to 
be  guilty  of  a  legal  offence.  The  charge  was  confessed  in  full, 
without  any  apology  or  explanation. 

The  official  record  of  the  Court  is  :  "  Xot  considered  a  ground 
of  presentment."  There  is  no  appeal  from  this  decision.  This 
is  a  judicial  interpretation  of  the  meaning  of  the  Canon,  and  a 
judicial  promulgation  of  that  decision  in  Ohio.  The  same  Canon 


27 

is  equally  the  law  in  New- York  and  all  over  the  United  States. 
Can  it  have  various  significations — meanings  that  shall  be  not 
only  diverse  but  antagonistic  ?  Can  a  general  law  condemn  and 
punish  in  one  diocese  what  it  allows  in  another  ?  There  is  no 
danger  of  this  in  regard  to  the  rule  before  us.  This  "  authori- 
tative recognition  "  of  an  Episcopal  minister's  right  to  preach  the 
Gospel,  even  to  those  who  do  not,  or  cannot,  or  will  not  use  the 
Prayer-Book,  occurred  some  six  months  since.  In  justice  to 
Bishop  Potter,  it  ought  to  be  known,  however,  that  the  decision 
was  not  made  public  until  after  his  Pastoral  Letter  was  printed. 
The  explanation  of  the  unique  Russo-Greek  performance  at  Trin- 
ity Chapel,  and  the  principles  which  that  explanation  involves,  as 
as  well  as  several  other  particulars  presented  in  this  Letter,  are 
marked  for  a  notice ;  but  as  it  is  not  my  design  to  review  the 
Pastoral  further  than  it  seems  necessary  to  defend  our  beloved 
and  venerable  Church  against  its  strange  and  injurious  assump- 
tions, and  as  this  reply  has  already  been  extended  much  beyond 
my  original  design,  they  may  pass. 

I  cannot  conclude,  however,  without  a  brief  reference  to  one 
feature  of  this  party  view,  which  I  am  forced  to  regard  as  unphi- 
losophical,  unscriptural,  and,  in  a  high  degree,  at  variance  with 
the  genius  of  the  Gospel.  It  is  that  notion  which  makes  a  partic- 
ular outward  form  of  Church  government,  and  a  particular  mode 
of  transmitting  the  ministry,  of  more  importance  than  "  the  faith" 
the  casket  more  valuable  than  the  jewel  it  was  made  to  preserve, 
and  that  spirit  which,  to  the  great  injury  of  our  Church,  sets  this 
unscriptural  dogma  before  the  world  as  her  doctrine. 

>'  Non  tali  auzilio,  nee  defensoribus  istis 
Tempos  eget." 

The  Word  of  God  guards  the  essentials  of  the  faith  with  a 
watchful  jealousy  which  it  evinces  in  nothing  else.  Each  member 
of  the  Church  is  to  "  examine  himself  continually,  whether  he  be 
in  the  faith,"  and  all  are  to  "  contend  earnestly,  striving  together 
for  the  faith  of  the  Gospel."  The  chief  requirement  in  regard  to 
the  ministry  is,  that  it  should  be  committed  to  men  who  are 
"  sound  in  the  faith,"  The  ministry,  the  sacraments,  the  visible 
Church,  would  have  neither  meaning  nor  value  without  the  faith. 
The  supremacy  of  the  faith  over  all  outward  things,  is  seen  in  all 
those  passages  in  the  New  Testament,  which  describe  or  define  a 
local  Church,  (l  Cor.  1  :  3,  et  passim)  Ministers  of  envy  and 
strife  preached  Christ  of  contention,  for  the  express  purpose  of 


28 

adding  affliction  to  the  Apostle's  bonds,  thus  most  wickedly  and 
grossly  violating  all  outward  order,  and  yet  he  rejoices  that  Christ 
is  preached.  Some  openly  denied  his  ministerial  authority  and 
claims ;  but  though  they  rejected  the  servant,  they  acknowledged 
the  Master,  and  in  this  recognition  he  found  a  bond  of  union 
which  no  outward  circumstances  could  sever. 

The  gracious  benedictions  of  the  apostles,  spurning  all  outward 
distinctions,  at  a  time  when  parties  and  distractions  were  rife,  were : 
"  Grace  be  with  all  them  that  love  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  sin- 
cerity." Their  sentence  of  excommunication  is  of  the  same  tenor : 
"  If  any  man  love  not  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  let  him  be  anathema." 
The  early  Christians  were  to  judge  the  claims  of  the  ministry  by 
their  "  soundness  in  the  faith,"  while  they  were  expressly  forbid- 
den to  receive  or  welcome  any  "  who  preached  strange  doctrine," 
whatever  outward  commission  he  might  bear.  Even  the  great 
chosen  Apostle  to  the  Gentiles  writes :  "  Though  we,  or  an  angel 
from  heaven,  preach  any  other  gospel  unto  you,  let  him  be  ac- 
cursed." This  is  no  mere  extravagance  of  language.  It  is  so 
essential  and  vital,  that  he  emphasizes  it  by  repeating  it  immedi- 
ately, in  nearly  the  identical  words.  In  the  Epistles  to  the  Seven 
Churches  they  are  commended  or  blamed,  not  for  preserving  or 
neglecting  outward  order,  but  for  maintaining  or  neglecting  the 
faith.  This  is  the  spirit  of  the  New  Testament.  Need  we  won- 
der at  its  denunciation  of  that  Diotrephian  spirit  "  which  loves  to 
have  the  preeminence,  neither  doth  it  itself  \  receive  the  brethren, 
and  forbiddeth  them  that  would,  and  casteth  them  out  of  the 
Church." 

The  manner  in  which  the  positions  of  the  Letter  are  laid  down, 
is  also  worthy  of  notice.  It  seiems  to  be  indigenous  with  a  certain 
school  of  theology.  The  autobiography  of  the  late  Professor  Turner 
is  replete  with  valuable  facts  and  instruction  on  this  particular 
point. 

On  page  97,  referring  to  his  sermon  preached  on  the  occasion 
of  opening  the  Theological  Seminary  at  New-Haven,  he  says: 
"  Bishop  Hobart,  like  all  Churchmen  of  similar  views  with  whom 
I  have  ever  happened  to  converse  on  the  subject,  assumed  that,  if 
episcopacy  was  of  divine  origin,  it  must  necessarily  be  permanent; 
whereas,  this  is  the  very  point  to  be  proved.  The  same  principle, 
assumed  by  Cartwright  and  other  Puritans,  is  examined  and  re- 
futed by  Hooker."  Again  on  pp.  210-211,  alluding  to  the  Oxford 
Tracts,  and  to  "  the  cant  in  common  use  among  a  certain  class  of 
persons,"  he  says :  "  Thus,  as  has  always  been  the  case  in  such 


29 

controversy,  the  thing  to  be  proved  was  taken  for  granted"  This, 
as  well  as  the  true  spirit  of  this  party,  are  strikingly  exhibited  in 
the  seventh  chapter  of  the  Memoir,  which  contains  the  history  of 
the  famous  pastoral  letter  from  Bishop  Hobart,  issued  in  1829, 
and  of  the  controversy  it  provoked.  The  same  mode  of  conduct- 
ing a  controversy,  and  the  same  spirit,  have  come  down  to  our 
times,  and  are  abundantly  illustrated  in  the  late  Pastoral  Letter 
of  our  Diocesan.  It  is  perhaps  natural  that  a  narrow  and  exclu- 
sive spirit  should  be  sustained  and  encouraged  by  assumptions,  as 
there  is  nothing  else  to  support  "  the  mere  promptings  of  senti- 
ment and  self-will."  In  the  letter  before  us,  without  any  legal 
inquiry,  certain  facts  are  assumed :  not  only  without,  but  against 
proof,  it  is  assumed  that  our  worship  and  discipline  teach  certain 
exclusive  principles ;  in  the  face  of  an  opposite  historical  inter- 
pretation, it  is  assumed^  that  one  man's  private  opinions  of  the 
meaning  of  the  Canons,  is  the  law  of  our  Church,  although  it  op- 
poses and  defies  all  usage,  and  even  judicial  decisions.  It  assumes 
what  has  been  "  the  practice  of  the  great  body  of  bishops,  clergy, 
and  people ;"  and  then,  upon  this,  bases  the  further  assumption, 
that  their  neglect  or  refusal  to  exercise  their  lawful  liberty,  legally 
restrains  others  from  transcending  their  unbecoming  example  ;  it 
assumes  that  conduct,  which  well-known,  honorable,  intelligent, 
and  conscientious  men  honestly  regard  as  strictly  within  the  line 
of  their  canonical  privileges,  and  even  enjoined  by  their  responsi- 
bility to  God,  is  "  trifling  with  the  truth  of  God,"  "  a  violation 
of  obligations  solemnly  assumed  and  of  engagements  generally 
deemed  sacred."  On  these  and  other  assumptions,  charges  are 
made  against  a  large  number,  not  a  '•'•few,"  of  the  clergy,  of  the 
gravest  character  ;  charges  of  which  it  has  been  well  said :  "  I  do 
not  see  how,  in  respectful  terms,  you  could  intensify  their  solem- 
nity." All  this  "  severity  of  judgment"  is  pronounced,  without 
the  palliating  hint  or  admission,  that  the  accused  suppose  or  pre- 
tend that  their  acts  are  justified  by  the  principles,  the  law,  and 
the  practice  of  their  Church.  It  assumes  their  deliberate  and  con- 
scious criminality,  and  charges  these  crimes  to  "  the  mere  prompt- 
ings of  sentiment  and  self-will,  which  disregard  the  paramount 
obligations  of  obedience."  Far  be  it  from  me  to  reply  to  these 
"  railing  accusations  "  with  a  reviling  spirit.  I  would  fain  have 
covered  them  with  the  mantle  of  oblivion  ;  but  the  honor  and  the 
moral  character  of  a  large  number  of  his  clergy  are  publicly  as- 
sailed by  th'eir  Diocesan,  and  the  doctrines  and  principles  of  their 
Church,  as  they  believe,  are  misrepresented  in  connection  with 


30 

this  as  ault.  Self-respect  and  fidelity  to  their  principles  and  vows 
forbid  them  to  be  silent.  If  there  had  been  nothing  but  a  sense 
of  personal  injustice  to  be  borne,  they  might  have  consented  with- 
out a  word,  to  allow  the  congregations  they  serve,  and  the  com- 
munity in  which  they  are  known,  to  decide  upon  the  propriety  of 
these  imputations.  If  the  difference  had  been  a  mere  matter  of 
opinion  as  to  the  construction  of  our  Canon  law,  it  could  easily 
have  been  adjusted,  without  opening  the  fountains  whence  flow 
the  bitter  waters  of  strife.  But  the  Pastoral  Letter  goes  beyond 
this.  It  assails  personal  character,  and  in  order  to  do  this,  it  re- 
pudiates some  of  the  very  principles  on  which  the  Reformation 
hinged.  The  first  is  obvious  on  the  face  of  the  Letter ;  the  second 
is  equally  plain  to  any  historical  student.  In  brief,  it  amounts  to 
the  following  summary  : 

These  "  considerations  touching  the  law  of  the  Church "  are 
sent 'to  all  the  clergy,  though  "  but  few  "  need  them,  because  the 
author  '•'•fears  "  these  few  have  broken  the  law  and  disturbed  "  the 
peace  and  good  order  of  the  Church ;"  because  he  has  frequently 
been  urged  to  interpose,  and  especially  because  he  hopes  in  this 
way  to  change  the  minds  and  conduct  of  his  clergy,  who  are  vir- 
tually charged  with  being  lawless,  disorderly,  and  seditious — 
whom,  however,  he  has  always  treated  with  kindness,  and  never 
interfered  with  before.     The  solemn  obligations  and  vows  as- 
sumed, and  professions  and  promises  made,  in  connection  with 
the  ordination  of  these  gross  offenders,  are  offensively  set  forth,  as 
if  they  were  forgotten  or  unheeded ;  and  then,  purporting  to  ap- 
peal to  the  standards  of  our  Church  for  her  doctrines^  discipline, 
and  worship,  the  creeds  and  the  articles  which  formally  teach  her 
doctrines  on  the  particular  question  which  underlies  and  is  the 
sole  foundation  of  the  Letter,  are  entirely  ignored,  and  principles 
are  sought  to  be  derived  from  our  standards  of  discipline  by  a 
construction  which  is  unnecessary,  unnatural,  and  illogical ;  prin- 
ciples which  are  inconsistent  with  our  technically  expressed  doc- 
trine, and  with  the  well-known  views  and  practice  of  this  and  the 
Mother  Church  for  three  hundred  years  ;  and  this  is  done,  for  the 
purpose  of  confirming  a  party  scheme  of  doctrine  and  discipline 
which  this  Church  has  never  received,  and  under  threats  of  pains 
and  penalties  enforcing  their  outward  acknowledgment  upon  the 
Church  over  which  the  author  presides. 

A  few  years  since  the  late  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  was  rude- 
ly assailed  by  the  Tractarian  party,  for  his  emphatic  repudiation 
of  the  exclusive  theory  of  this  Pastoral  Letter.  The  controversy 


31 

that  followed,  proved  that  the  exclusive  party  were  few  in  num- 
bers, and  ignorant  of  the  facts  which  candid  minds  confessed  set- 
tled the  question  in  favor  of  the  Primate.  Some  of  this  class, 
among  whom  was  the  Chaplain  to  the  famous  Bishop  of  Exeter, 
discovering  that  the  so-called  "  Church  principles  "  which  they  had 
been  taught  were  not  held  by  the  Church  of  England,  seceded  to 
Rome,  honestly  declaring  that  the  facts  and  the  argument  were 
against  the  Tractarian  party.  Many,  however,  refused  to  see  the 
facts,  or  to  follow  them  to  their  logical  conclusions. 

The  language  then  employed  by  a  learned  divine,  in  regard  to 
these  circumstances,  is  not  altogether  inappropriate  to  the  present 
controversy : 

"  Under  the  thin  veil  of  high-sounding  phrases — '  the  Church,' 
'  Catholic  consent,'  and  such  like,  the  Romish  dreams  of  hot- 
headed or  prejudiced,  and  often  very  ill-informed  individuals,  are 
urged  upon  the  public  as  indubitable  verities,  which  it  were  a  sin 
to  suppose  that  our  Church  does  not  hold,  and  by  which  all  who 
differ  from  them,  from  the  highest  to  the  lowest,  are  to  be  judged. 
We  say  deliberately,  even  as  to  the  heads  of  the  party,  very  ill. 
informed  individuals ;  and  on  this  ground,  that  whatever  may  be 
their  learning  in  other  respects,  (and  it  is  too  often  to  be  seen 
principally  in  the  trifles  of  the  Church  ceremonial,)  they  seem 
rather  to  avoid  than  examine  those  sources  of  information  which 
best  show  what  the  doctrine  of  our  Church  really  is,  as  was  abund- 
antly proved  in  the  Gorham  case ;  and  palm  upon  our  Church 
views  and  doctrines  which  they  have  gathered  by  their  private 
judgment  from  antiquity.  We  deeply  regret  that  our  Church 
should  be  continually  suffering  from  these  internal  dissensions ; 
but  we  fear  that,  if  she  is  still  to  remain  a  witness  for  Protestant 
truth,  a  conflict  awaits  her,  both  from  internal  and  external  foes, 
more  severe  than  any  she  has  yet  encountered.  Would  that  we 
could  see  a  more  lively  consciousness  of  this  coming  struggle 
manifested  among  those,  lay  and  clerical,  who,  under  God,  must 
be  the  instruments  for  her  preservation.  Few,  however,  seem  to 
realize  the  true  character  of  the  present  times." 

I  have  endeavored  to  vindicate  my  Church  and  many  of  my 
brethren  from  the  charges  of  the  Pastoral  Letter.  So  far  as  I 
could  do  so  consistently  with  this  end  in  view,  I  have  sought  to 
divest  the  discussion  of  its  personal  relations,  and  regard  the 
questions  before  us  abstractly,  and  on  their  own  merits.  If  I  have 
betrayed  any  apparent  want  of  proper  respect  and  regard  for  my 
venerable  Diocesan  in  this  paper,  it  has  not  been  by  wilful  design. 


32 

Nothing  short  of  the  most  solemn  and  imperative  sense  of  duty 
could  have  induced  me  to  take  up  my  pen  in  controversy  with  my 
canonical  superior,  whose  official  and  personal  relations  to  me 
have  uniformly  been  characterized  by  the  most  paternal  kindness 
and  by  many  tokens  of  confidence  and  affectionate  regard. 

I  am  sure  he  would  not  willingly  teach  what  he  knew  to  be 
error,  and  that  he  has  no  love  of  domination  for  its  own  sake. .  I 
have  no  doubt  that  he  is  as  honest  in  the  views  which  he  holds  as 
I  am  in  mine.  In  the  language  of  Chillingworth  :  "  I  will  take  no 
man's  liberty  of  judgment  from  him ;  neither  shall  any  man  take 
mine  from  me.  I  will  think  no  man  the  worse  man,  nor  the  worse 
Christian,  I  will  love  no  man  the  less,  for  differing  in  opinion 
from  me.  And  what  measure  I  mete  to  others  I  expect  from  them 
again."  But  I  shall  %  never  willingly  surrender  my  Christian 
liberty  and  my  lawful  rights,  that  an  individual  may  convert  a 
comprehensive  and  Catholic  Church  into  an  engine  for  enforcing 
his  private  opinions,  or  the  views  of  any  party. 

I  yield  to  no  man  in  sincere  and  affectionate  regard  for  the 
Church  of  my  inheritance  and  my  honest  choice.  She  is  preemi- 
nently fitted  for  any  service.  I  have  an  abiding  confidence  in  the 
success  of  her  exalted  mission.  I  could  be  satisfied  nowhere 
else.  She  is  richly  freighted  with  scriptural  truth,  and,  as  I  be. 
lieve,  governed  according  to  Apostolic  order.  It  is  because  I  love 
her  scriptural  order,  her  comprehensive  and  catholic  spirit,  her 
liberal  policy,  her  inimitable  worship,  consecrated  by  the  use  of 
piety  for  centuries,  and  above  all,  her  soundness  in  the  faith,  that 
I  have  here  undertaken  to  defend  her  from  what  I  believe  to  be 
some  of  the  most  unjust  and  injurious  charges  that  could  be  pre- 
ferred against  any  Christian  body.  In  addition  to  the  foregoing 
objections  to  the  Pastoral  Letter,  I  regret  and  lament  its  publica- 
tion for  the  following  reasons : 

It  encourages  busy-bodies  to  meddle  with  matters  beyond  their 
province. 

It  awakens  discord  and  bitter  feelings  among  brethren. 
It  feeds  party  spirit  and  party  animosities. 
It  is  needlessly  offensive  to  a  great  majority  of  our  fellow- 
Christians  in  this  country. 

It  is  calculated  to  repel  from  us  the  sympathies  of  Protestant 
Christendom. 

It  violates  "  the  unity  of  the  spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace." 
It  fosters  dissension  in  parishes. 
It  encourages  infidelity. 


33 

It  diverts  the  minds  and  the  activities  of  the  sacred  ministry 
from  their  great  work  of  preaching  the  Gospel  and  edifying  the 
Church,  to  that  of  self-defence  on  the  one  hand  and  of  party  per- 
secutions on  the  other. 

It  withdraws  the  minds  of  Christians  from  their  spiritual  life, 
and  fixes  them  on  outward  forms. 

It  weakens  the  influence,  both  within  and  without  our  fold,  and 
to  that  extent  diminishes  the  opportunity  for  usefulness,  of  our 
Diocesan. 

It  repels  from  our  body  the  earnest  Christian  men  and  women 
who  are  much  needed  among  us,  and  from  our  ministry  many  of 
those  who  are  burning  and  shining  lights  in  other  communions. 

It  makes  us  contemptible  in  the  eyes  of  the  world. 

It  confirms  our  non-Episcopal  brethren  in  their  inherited  and 
cherished  prejudices  against  us,  and  in  their  misconceptions  of  our 
doctrines  and  principles. 

It  represents  oxir  Church,  which  more  than  any  other  has  a 
claim  to  be  called  the  Churchy  as  narrower  than  any  of  the  secta 
around  us. 

It  is  going  backward,  instead  of  forward  with  the  spirit  of 
the  age. 


pea  for  ait&mp  in  tjje 


A  LETTER 


ET.  KEY.  HOEATIO  POTTEB,  B.D.,  D.C.L. 


REV.  JOHN  COTTON  SMITH,  D.D., 

BECTOR  OF  THE  CHUKCH  OF  THE  ASCENSION,  NEW  TOEK. 


"Idcirco  legum  send  sumus,  ut  liberi  esse  possimus.' 


CAMBEIDGE: 
PRINTED  AT  THE  RIVERSIDE  PRESS. 

1865. 


A    PLEA 

FOR 

LIBERTY    IN    THE   CHURCH. 


RIGHT  REV.  AND  DEAR  BISHOP  :  —  In  the  Pastoral  Letter 
recently  addressed  by  you  to  the  Clergy  of  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church  in  the  Diocese'  of  New  York,  you  sum  up  the 
irregularities  of  which  you  complain  under  two  heads.  The 
first  of  these  is  thus  stated :  "  Ministers  of  this  Church  are 
understood  to  have  united  with  ministers  of  non-episcopal 
bodies  in  holding  services  in  churches  in  this  Diocese."  I  am 
conscious  that  I  am  one  of  a  number  of  clergymen  of  whom 
this  statement  is  true  ;  and  I  understand,  moreover,  from  your 
own  declaration  to  me,  that  an  act  of  this  kind,  which  I  have 
performed,  in  my  own  church,  is  regarded  by  you  as  a  violation 
of  ecclesiastical  law.  I  avail  myself,  therefore,  of  the  earliest 
opportunity,  and  in  the  only  way  which  now  seems  open  to 
me,  to  explain  the  true  character  and  vindicate  the  lawfulness 
of  the  act  to  which  I  have  referred.  As  the  question  at  issue 
is  one  merely  of  interpretation  of  Church  law,  and  as  I  do  not 
understand  you  as  intimating  that  I  have  consciously  violated 
any  rule  or  principle  of  the  Church,  I  have  no  personal  feeling 
whatever  about  it.  I  believe  that  the  Pastoral  was  written 
under  an  imperative  sense  of  duty.  I  believe,  too,  that  the 
course  which  you  have  pursued  has  been  dictated  by  kindness 
(though  I  consider  it  a  mistaken  kindness)  towards  those 
whose  acts  have  been  the  subject  of  complaint,  and  in  order  to 
shield  them  from  the  ecclesiastical  proceedings  which  were 
threatened.  The  present  aspect  of  our  relations,  therefore, 


4  A  Plea  for  Liberty  in  the  Church. 

disturbs,  in  no  degree,  the  feelings  which  it  has  been  my  priv- 
ilege to  entertain  towards  you,  and  I  do  not  intend  that  any 
word  or  act  of  mine  shall  diminish  the  kindly  sentiments  which 
you  have  been  pleased  to  cherish  towards  me.  So  far  from 
regretting  the  shape  which  this  matter  has  assumed,  I  rejoice 
that  the  question  has  come  up  in  a  form  which  will  lead  to  its 
thorough  discussion  and  settlement. 

My  claim  is,  as  you  would  naturally  suppose,  that  I  have 
done  nothing,  in  my  official  capacity,  which  is  contrary  either  to 
the  letter  or  the  spirit  of  our  ecclesiastical  law,  and  have  acted  only 
in  accordance  with  principles  which  have  either  been*  recog- 
nized as  legitimate,  or  have  controlled  the  sentiment  and  action 
of  the  Church.  The  question  is  simply  as  to  what  the  prin- 
ciples and  laws  of  the  Church  really  are  ;  and  to  decide  that 
point  and  pass  judgment  upon  it,  before  adjudication  upon  the 
facts,  and  the  verdict  of  a  legal  tribunal,  is,  it  seems  to  me,  to 
assume  the  very  things  in  dispute,  and  beg  the  very  question 
at  issue.  I  shall  endeavor  to  state  my  view  of  the  principles 
and  laws  of  our  Church  as  bearing  upon  the  act  which  I  have 
performed.  In  doing  this  I  shall  suggest  many  considerations 
which  are  perfectly  familiar  to  your  mind,  and  I  may  perhaps, 
in  other  respects,  seem  to  depart  from  what  might  be  deemed 
strictly  suitable  in  a  letter  to  my  Bishop.  I  beg  to  assure  you, 
therefore,  that  it  arises  simply  from  the  fact  that  this  letter  is 
designed  as  a  vindication  of  my  position  to  others  as  well  as 
yourself. 

Suffer  me,  in  the  first  place,  to  state  the  circumstances  under 
which  the  act  in  question  was  performed. 

On  the  evening  of  Easter  Sunday,  after  the  due  celebration 
of  Divine  service  during  the  day,  morning  and  afternoon,  the 
Rev.  Dr.  William  Adams,  a  distinguished  Presbyterian  divine, 
in  compliance  with  an  earnest  invitation  from  me,  preached  in 
my  church  to  a  large  and  promiscuous  congregation,  assembled 
by  public  and  general  notice.  I  placed  the  entire  services  of 
the  evening  at  his  disposal,  and  in  accordance  with  his  wish 
the  service  was  read  by  the  Rev.  Drs.  Muhlenberg  and  Dyer, 
of  the  Episcopal  Church.  It  is  but  justice  to  Dr.  Adams  to 


A  Plea  for  Liberty  in  the  Church.  5 

say,  that  he  had  no  claims  to  urge  in  this  matter,  but  at  the 
same  time  complied  most  courteously  with  my  request.  After 
the  sermon  I  stated  to  the  congregation  that  the  service  was 
intended  as  a  testimony  of  fellowship  with  all  believers  in  the 
incarnation,  atonement,  and  resurrection  of  our  Lord.  On  the 
morning  of  the  same  day  I  stated  to  my  own  people,  that,  in 
my  judgment,  there  were  very  peculiar  and  unusual  circum- 
stances which  rendered  such  a  special  service  desirable,  that  I 
had  therefore  requested  that  it  might  be  held,  and  had  offered 
my  own  church  for  the  purpose. 

I  have  no  apology  to  make  for  this  service,  and  shall  resort 
to  no  mere  technicalities  in  its  defence,  but  shall  rest  it  upon 
what  I  hold  to  be,  in  the  light  of  history  and  common  sense,  a 
fair  and  candid  interpretation  of  the  law  and  standards  of  our 
Church. 

As  this  discussion  involves  the  question  of  the  Episcopal 
Constitution  of  our  Church,  it  is  not  right  that  I  should  labor 
under  any  disadvantage  arising  from  a  suspicion  that  I  do  not 
heartily  approve  of  that  Constitution.  I  hold  it  to  be  essential 
to  the  well-being  of  the  Church.  I  have  no  expectation  that 
there  will  ever  be  any  real  or  structural  union  in  the  Church 
of  Christ,  except  upon  the  basis  of  Apostolic  Episcopacy.  So 
far  from  sympathizing  with  denominationalism  and  the  sect- 
spirit  among  Christians,  I  have  always  contended  against  them, 
and  striven  especially  that  our  Church  should  not  descend 
from  her  catholic  position  to  that  of  a  denomination  or  sect. 
But  for  the  very  reason  that  I  do  hold  this,  I  would  take 
exactly  the  stand  which;  in  my  opinion,  our  Church  has  taken, 
recognizing  the  present  abnormal  state  of  Christendom,  ad- 
mitting that  the  various  evangelical  denominations  have  the 
essential  characteristics  of  the  Church  and  the  ministry,  and 
thus  disarm  them  of  those  prejudices  which  arise  from  the  ex- 
clusive theory  and  position.  I  have  perfect  confidence  in  what 
I  understand  to  be  the  system  of  our  Church.  The  more  our 
services  are  seen,  side  by  side  with  other  services,  the  better  it 
will  be  for  us.  But  if,  instead  of  leaving  the  Church  to  speak 
for  herself,  we  hedge  her  around  with  walls  of  exclusiveness, 


6  A  Plea  for  Liberty  in  the  Church. 

and  trammel  liberty  of  action,  and  proscribe  freedom  of  opin- 
ion, we  shall  be  left  far  behind  in  the  world's  great  progress, 
and  become  a  laughing-stock  among  Christian  people. 

Claiming  then,  as  I  do,  to  approve,  as  strongly  as  yourself, 
of  the  principles  and  laws  of  the  Church,  to  be  as  satisfied 
as  yourself  with  her  constitution  and  usages,  to  feel  as  entire 
confidence  as  you  do  in  her  system,  and  to  be  as  willing  as  you 
are  to  be  bound  by  her  authority,  it  devolves  upon  me  to  justify 
the  act  which  I  have  performed. 

Let  me,  then,  in  the  first  place,  refer  to  the  several  principles 
and  laws  of  the  Church,  which  you  have  adduced  as  bearing 
upon  this  case.  In  the  Ordination  Service  those  who  are  to  be 
ordained  "  solemnly  engage  to  conform  to  the  doctrines  and 
worship  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States."  Besides  this,  in  the  same  service  the  same  persons 
promise  to  give  "  faithful  diligence  always  so  to  minister  the 
doctrine  and  sacraments  and  discipline  of  Christ,  as  the  Lord 
hath  commanded,  and  as  this  Church  hath  received  the  same." 

There  is  certainly  here  no  point  in  question.  Have  I  ever 
denied  that  I  am  bound  to  conform  to  the  doctrines  and  wor- 
ship of  this  Church  ?  or  have  I  ever  failed  to  "  minister  the 
doctrine  and  sacraments  and  the  discipline  of  Christ,  as  the 
Lord  hath  commanded  and  as  this  Church,"  according  to  ac- 
cepted systems  of  interpretation,  "  hath  received  the  same  "  ? 
I  cannot  but  feel  that  it  would  be  better  to  omit  these  consid- 
erations in  dealing  with  men  who  are  above  the  suspicion  of 
trifling  with  their  ordination  vows. 

But  let  us  see  what  are  the  "  doctrines,  discipline,  and  wor- 
ship of  this  Church,"  so  far  as  they  have  any  bearing  upon 
the  present  case. 

In  Canon  1  it  is  enacted  that  "  IN  THIS  CHURCH  there  shall 
always  be  three  orders  in  the  ministry,  viz.,  Bishops,  Priests, 
and  Deacons."  In  the  sixth  section  of  Canon  5,  Title  I.,  as 
compared  with  Canon  10,  Title  I.,  we  have  the  law  of  the 
Church  discriminating  between  those  who  have  been  acknowl- 
edged as  ordained  ministers  in  any  other  denomination  of 
Christians,  and  those  who  have  been  ordained  by  a  Bishop  not 


A  Plea  for  Liberty  in  the  Church.  7 

in  communion  with  this  Church.  Of  the  former  she  requires, 
before  they  can  become  ministers  of  this  Church,  that  they 
shall  be  admitted  to  deacon's  orders,  at  the  expiration  of  not 
less  than  six  months,  and  after  the  examinations  in  such  case 
provided.  The  latter  may  be  admitted  as  deacons  or  priests 
in  this  Church,  after  due  inquiry  and  examination,  a  probation 
of  six  months,  and  a  declaration  of  conformity,  without  reordi- 
nation.  From  all  which  it  appears  that  no  one  can  become  a 
minister  of  THIS  CHURCH  without  episcopal  ordination.  A 
clear  distinction  is  made  between  ministers  of  other  Churches 
who  have,  and  those  who  have  not  been  episcopally  ordained, 
but  the  distinction  relates  only  to  the  method  by  which  they 
shall  enter  our  ministry.  It  manifestly  does  not  touch  the 
question  whether  services  can  ever  be  lawfully  held  in  our 
places  of  worship  by  those  who  are  not  ministers  of  this 
Church. 

But  we  come  now  to  laws  which  stand  in  closer  relation  to 
the  present  case. 

In  the  Preface  to  the  Ordinal  it  is  said,  —  "  No  man  shall 
be  accounted  or  taken  to  be  a  lawful  Bishop,  Priest,  or  Deacon, 
IN  THIS  CHURCH,  or  suffered  to  execute  any  of  the  said  func- 
tions, except  he  be  called,  tried,  examined,  and  admitted  there- 
unto, according  to  the  form  hereafter  following,  or  hath  had 
episcopal  ordination  or  consecration."  In  Canon  11,  Title 
I.,  it  is  enacted  that  "  no  person  shall  be  permitted  to  officiate 

in  ANY  CONGREGATION    OF   THIS  CHURCH  Without  first  produC- 

ing  the  evidence  of  his  being  a  minister  thereof." 

It  has  always  been  my  view  that  the  general  law  of  the 
Church,  and  this  Canon  in  particular,  do  not  prohibit  the  hold- 
ing of  special  services  in  our  churches,  by  those  who  are  not 
ministers  of  this  Church.  Knowing,  however,  that  there  is  a 
different  interpretation  of  the  law  prevalent  in  this  Diocese,  and 
unwilling  even  to  seem  to  do  anything  in  its  violation,  I  have 
avoided  acting  upon  my  own  view  of  its  meaning.  Your  own 
position  and  course,  my  dear  Bishop,  placed  the  matter  in  a 
different  light  before  me,  and  led  me  to  pursue  a  different 
course  of  action.  I  hailed  the  first  indication  of  the  liberal 


8  A  Plea  for  Liberty  in  the  Church. 

and  comprehensive  construction  of  the  law  of  the  Church, 
which  you  seemed  to  have  adopted,  with  delight,  admiration, 
and  gratitude.  The  usual  course  of  things,  in  this  Diocese, 
was  first  interrupted  by  your  sanction  of  the  preaching  of 
the  Rev.  Dr.  Schaff,  a  German  Reformed  divine,  in  the  Church 
of  the  Holy  Communion.  Then  a  German  Lutheran,  as  I 
have  understood,  preached  with  the  same  sanction  in  the  same 
place.  Some  time  after  this  an  invitation  was  extended  by 
you,  as  has  been  publicly  stated,  to  all  the  priests  who  accom- 
panied the  Russian  expedition,  to  officiate  in  any  of  the 
churches  of  your  Diocese.  This  was  followed  by  your  sanc- 
tion, in  a  letter  published  in  the  secular  and  religious  papers, 
of  the  officiating  of  a  person  purporting  to  be  a  priest  of  the 
Russo-Greek,  or  of  some  Oriental  Church,  in  Trinity  Chapel 
of  this  city.  Few  facts  in  the  history  of  the  Church,  in  my 
brief  experience,  have  given  me  more  joy  than  these.  I  re- 
garded them  as  high  authority  for  my  own  views.  I  felt  that 
the  time  had  come  when  by  outward  act  we  could  testify  our 
fellowship  with  those  who,  outside  of  our  own  fold,  are  the 
disciples  and  ministers  of  Jesus.  All  the  arrangements  were 
made  for  such  a  testimony,  when  I  heard,  to  my  great  disap- 
pointment, that  you  had  recalled  your  course  so  far  as  non- 
episcopal  divines  were  concerned,  and  were  determined  that 
they  should  not  henceforth  be  admitted  into  our  places  of 
worship.  I  called  upon  you,  learned  that  you  could  not  con- 
sent to  my  proposed  arrangement,  but  that  you  would  interpose 
no  episcopal  prohibition.  You  said  nothing  which  altered  my 
view  of  the  law  of  the  Church,  and  I  went  away  to  carry  into 
effect  the  arrangement  which  I  had  already  made,  and  in  the 
manner  which  I  have  already  described. 

In  view  of  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  am  I  not  war- 
ranted in  taking  exception,  with  all  respect,  to  the  course  which 
you  have  pursued?  For,  see  what  it  involves.  I  find  you 
practically  carrying  out  some  of  my  own  cherished  principles 
and  ideas,  and  this  not  only  once,  but  again  and  again.  I 
find  the  example  which  you  have  set  followed  repeatedly  by 
others.  I  avail  myself  of  it  to  show  my  fellowship  with  those, 


A  Plea  for  Liberty  in  the  Church.  9 

outside  of  our  fold,  who  are  working  in  the  cause  of  our  Mas- 
ter. I  learn  the  change  in  your  own  position  when  it  is  too 
late,  even  if  I  had  been  disposed,  to  recall  what  I  had  designed 
to  do,  and  with  your  assurance  that  you  interposed  no  episcopal 
prohibition,  I  carry  out  the  plan  contemplated ;  and  ere  long 
I  find  myself  and  others,  who  have  only  followed  your  own 
guidance  and  example,  virtually  held  up  before  the  Church  as 
violators  of  its  law  and  as  faithless  to  our  ordination  vows. 

But  this  has  a  bearing  only  upon  the  course  which  you  have 
pursued:  it  does  not  meet  the  allegation  that  the  act  com- 
plained of  is  a  violation  of  the  law  of  the  Church.  That  is 
the  point  which  is  now  to  be  considered.  The  question  is, 
whether  the  Preface  to  the  Ordinal  and  Canon  11,  Title  I., 
(for  these  are  the  only  laws  which  you  adduce,  except  those 
to  which  I  have  already  referred,)  prohibit  the  holding  of  ser- 
vices in  our  churches,  under  any  circumstances,  by  those  who 
are  not  ministers  of  this  Church,  or  in  case  such  services  may 
lawfully  be  held,  the  participating  of  our  clergy  in  them. 

Take  first  the  Preface  to  the  Ordinal.  This  Preface  stands 
now  substantially  as  it  has  stood  ever  since  the  Reformation. 
Some  changes  of  expression  were  introduced  into  it  in  1661, 
but  in  its  actual  requirements  it  has  remained  unaltered.  A 
new  and  exclusive  interpretation  began  to  be  put  upon  it  at  that 
time  by  the  followers  of  Archbishop  Laud  ;  and  this  interpre- 
tation is  the  one  which  we  are  required  to  accept,  instead  of  that 
of  the  Reformers,  by  whom  the  Preface  itself  was  composed. 
Now  I  am  not  willing,  for  one,  to  accept  any  interpretation  of 
this  Preface  which  brings  it  nearer  than  its  plain,  grammatical 
sense  requires,  to  the  spirit  and  theory  of  Archbishop  Laud. 
A  man  who,  notwithstanding  his  admitted  piety  and  devotion, 
could  contemplate  the  acknowledgment  of  the  supremacy  of 
the  Pope  by  the  Church  of  England,  who  actually  hesitated 
whether  he  should  accept  a  cardinal's  hat  from  Rome,  and 
who  was  executed  as  a  traitor  to  the  liberties  of  his  country,  is 
not  the  man,  in  my  opinion,  whose  principles  are  to  determine 
the  interpretation  of  the  standards  of  our  Church. 

History  shows  us,  conclusively,  the  interpretation  which  was 


10  A  Plea  for  Liberty  in  the  Church. 

put  upon  the  Preface  to  the  Ordinal  during  the  century  that 
succeeded  the  Reformation.  There  was  no  exclusion  of  minis- 
ters from  officiating  in  churches  because  they  were  not  episco- 
pally  ordained.  The  ministers  of  the  Scotch  Church,  and  of 
the  Protestant  churches  on  the  Continent,  were  expressly 
recognized.  Practices  involving  this  recognition  were  indeed 
suppressed  by  the  Act  of  Uniformity  of  1662,  but  the  Act  of 
Uniformity,  I  need  not  remind  you,  is  not  in  force  in  the 
United  States.  (Note  A.) 

There  are  abundant  facts,  also,  to  show  that  no  such  exclu- 
sive interpretation  is  authoritatively  put  upon  the  Preface  to 
the  Ordinal  in  England  at  the  present  day.  It  is  true  that, 
by  act  of  Parliament,  dissenting  ministers  are  disqualified  from 
officiating  in  the  churches  of  the  Establishment;  just  as  in 
Scotland,  by  the  same  authority,  episcopal  ministers  are  dis- 
qualified from  officiating  in  the  Kirk.  It  is,  therefore,  not  a 
question  of  episcopacy  or  non-episcopacy.  It  is  a  law  of  the 
State,  and  not  the  Preface  to  the  Ordinal,  which  prevents  the 
dissenting  clergy  from  officiating  in  the  Church  of  England. 
That  this  is  so,  is  shown  still  further  by  the  fact  that  there  is 
no  such  exclusion,  practically,  in  the  case  of  foreign  non- 
episcopal  divines.  In  a  recent  speech  by  the  Bishop  of  London, 
he  tells  us  that  there  is  a  monthly  Presbyterian  service  held  in 
the  crypt  of  Canterbury  Cathedral,  and  that  in  the  Chapel  of 
St.  James  there  is  a  German  pastor,  (non-episcopal,  of  course,) 
although  the  dean  of  the  chapel  is  a  Bishop.  In  the  bill  for 
the  union  of  benefices  in  the  city  of  London,  the  Bishop  inserted 
a  clause  which  reserves  to  the  Diocesan  the  power  to  grant  the 
use  of  any  churches  which  might  remain  standing,  under  the 
operation  of  the  act,  to  any  denomination  of  foreign  Protes- 
tants who  might  apply  for  it.  In  Bishop  Gobat's  Cathedral  at 
Jerusalem,  the  Prussian  Legation  regularly  enjoys  the  privilege 
of  its  own  worship.  And  at  the  time  of  the  Great  Exhibition 
numbers  of  foreign  non-episcopal  clergymen  officiated  in  the 
churches  of  the  Establishment.  The  objections  which  have 
been  urged  against  these  proceedings  have  not  been  thought 
of  sufficient  importance  to  be  regarded. 


A  Plea  for  Liberty  in  the  Church.  11 

It  is  therefore  manifestly  not  a  question  in  England  of 
episcopacy  and  non-episcopacy  merely.  The  same  power  which 
admits  foreign  non-episcopal  ministers  to  hold  occasional  ser- 
vices would  exclude  the  ministers  even  of  any  other  episcopal 
Church,  if  it  should  establish  itself  in  Great  Britain.  It  is 
simply  a  question  between  the  Establishment  and  dissent,  and 
nothing  could  be  more  absurd  than  for  us,  in  this  country,  to 
imitate  the  exclusiveness  which  grows  out  of  the  civil  relations 
of  the  Church  of  England.  It  is  impossible  to  arrive  at  any 
true  conception  of  this  subject  without  taking  into  account  the 
Erastian  views  which,  from  the  time  of  Cranmer,  have  pre- 
vailed to  a  greater  or  less  degree  in  that  Church.  The  majority 
of  Englishmen  regard  dissent  as  culpable,  not  so  much  because 
it  is  separation  from  the  episcopal  constitution  of  the  Church 
as  because  it  rejects  the  ecclesiastical  system  established  by  the 
State.  And  this  accounts  for  the  entire  difference  in  the  rela- 
tions of  the  Church  of  England  with  non-episcopal  Churches 
at  home  and  non-episcopal  Churches  abroad.  And  the  point 
to  be  noticed  here  is,  that  these  relations  with  the  foreign  non- 
episcopal  Churches  and  the  admission  of  their  services  into  the 
churches  of  the  Establishment,  although  exceptional  in  their 
character,  show  conclusively  that  the  opinion  that  the  Preface 
to  the  Ordinal  has  no  reference  to  such  special  services,  is,  to 
say  the  least,  an  allowable  opinion  in  the  Church  of  England. 

The  practice  of  holding  meetings  and  services  of  various 
kinds  in  our  churches,  in  which  non-episcopal  ministers  have 
participated,  —  to  say  nothing  of  the  innumerable  cases  in 
which  they  have  had  for  the  time  the  entire  control  of  the 
service  and  the  building,  —  has  prevailed  to  so  great  an  extent 
in  this  country,  that  I  had  supposed  it  was  a  recognized  lib- 
erty in  the  Church.*  Especially  as  the  House  of  Bishops  has 
officially  declared  its  opinion  that  such  a  use  of  our  churches, 
under  certain  circumstances,  is  lawful,!  and  no  ecclesiastical 

*  Dr.  Tyng's  Reply  to  the  Pastoral  furnishes  most  conclusive  evidence  of  the  exer- 
cise of  this  liberty,  and  the  recognition  of  it,  by  the  most  eminent  Bishops  and  cler- 
gymen of  our  Church. 

t  "  It  does  not  prohibit ....  the  lending  of  any  church  to  any  respectable  congre- 
gation upon  any  occasion  of  emergency." — Journal  House  of  Bishops,  1820,  p.  58. 


12  A  Plea  for  Liberty  in  the  Church. 

proceedings  have  ever  been  instituted  against  any  one  for  acting 
in  this  matter  according  to  that  opinion,  I  had  come  to  regard 
it  as  settled  that  the  Preface  to  the  Ordinal  was  not  to  be  urged 
against  such  a  practice  here,  any  more  than  in  England  ;  and 
that  its  plain,  unmistakable  meaning  is  simply  this,  that  no  man 
shall  assume  the  character  of  a  bishop,  priest,  or  deacon  in  this 
Church,  and  in  that  character  execute  any  of  the  "  said  func- 
tions," unless  he  has  had  episcopal  ordination  or  consecration. 
The  history  of  the  Ordinal,  the  view  which  has  been  held 
of  it,  the  practice  under  it,  and  the  opinion  of  the  House  of 
Bishops,  all  combine  to  establish  the  point  for  which  I  am 
contending,  that  it  does  not  bear  upon  such  a  case  as  the  one 
in  question. 

The  only  law  to  which  you  refer,  which  now  remains  to  be 
considered,  is  Canon  11,  Title  I.  It  has  already  been  given. 
Literally  understood,  it  prohibits  any  person  from  officiating  in 
ANY  CONGREGATION  of  this  Church,  unless  he  shall  first  pro- 
duce evidence  that  he  is  a  minister  thereof.  Suffer  me  here 
respectfully  to  remark  upon  a  variation  between  the  language 
in  which  you  state  the  alleged  irregularity  and  the  language 
of  this  Canon,  which  it  is  supposed  to  violate.  You  speak  of 
"  non-episcopal  ministers  "  as  if  they  were  the  only  ones  who 
are  excluded  from  ministering  in  our  congregations.  Now 
the  Canon,  in  the  sense  in  which  it  excludes  any,  excludes  all 
who  are  not  ministers  of  this  Church,  even  if  they  have  been 
episcopally  ordained.  Just  so  far  as  it  excludes  Presbyterians 
or  Methodists,  it  excludes  priests  of  the  Roman  and  Greek 
communions,  and  also  the  clergy  of  the  Church  of  England 
until  they  have  complied  with  certain  canonical  requisitions ; 
in  short,  it  excludes  all  persons,  clerical  or  lay,  without  excep- 
tion, who  are  not  ministers  of  this  Church,  from  officiating  in 
any  congregation  of  this  Church.  It  is  sometimes  urged,  by 
those  who  advocate  a  liberal  construction  of  this  Canon,  that 
"  officiating  "  here  does  not  refer  to  an  occasional  act,  but  to  a 
permanent  performance  of  ministerial  functions ;  but  this  does 
not  seem  to  me  to  be  so,  for  the  Canon  evidently  contemplates 
the  case  of  a  congregation  where  there  is  a  settled  minister, 


A  Plea  for  Liberty  in  the  Church.  13 

and  where  any  one  whom  it  is  proposed  to  have  officiate,  for 
the  time  being,  of  course,  must  first  produce  evidence  that  he 
is  a  minister  of  this  Church.  Lay  readers  (except  in  the  case 
of  candidates  for  orders,  licensed  by  the  Bishop)  can  be  relieved 
from  the  operation  of  this  Canon,  only  on  the  ground  that  read- 
ing the  service  or  a  sermon  in  public  is  not  "  officiating."  The 
history  of  the  Canon  shows  indeed  that  it  was  originally  de- 
signed to  protect  our  congregations  from  impostors,  pretending 
to  be  ministers  of  this  Church,  and  that  there  was  no  intention 
to  make  it  exclusive  in  the  sense  now  attributed  to  it.  It 
read  originally  "  no  strangers,"  and  it  required  that  cases  of 
clerical  imposture  should  be  published.  It  was  changed  from 
"strangers"  to  "persons,"  to  meet  the  case  of  those  who  had 
been  displaced  from  the  ministry,  but  still  claimed  to  be  "  min- 
isters of  this  Church."  This,  together  with  the  wording  of 
the  Canon,  requiring,  as  it  does,  the  producing  of  evidence, 
shows  that  it  is  designed  wholly  for  those  who  falsely  pretend 
to  be  ministers  of  this  Church.  But  although  this  is  so,  and 

o  " 

ought  to  be  distinctly  understood  for  the  credit  of  our  Church, 
I  am  willing  to  accept  the  most  literal  interpretation  of  the 
Canon.  I  hold  it  accordingly  to  be  my  duty,  on  the  Lord's 
Day,  to  furnish  to  my  people  all  the  services  which  the  Church 
has  provided  for  that  purpose,  and  the  ministrations  in  the  pul- 
pit of  those  who  are  appointed  to  minister  in  this  Church. 
But  beyond  this,  to  congregations  gathered  from  our  own 
parishes  or  those  of  the  various  Christian  communions,  I  have 
the  right,  it  seems  clear  to  me,  to  furnish  in  my  church  what- 
ever ministrations  I  may  select,  and  for  whatever  purposes  I 
may  think  proper,  with  nothing  but  my  own  sense  of  propriety 
and  duty,  and  the  necessary  influence  of  public  opinion,  to 
qualify  my  perfect  liberty  of  action.  The  Canon  only  im- 
poses its  requisitions  upon  me  in  relation  to  a  regularly  consti- 
tuted "  congregation  of  this  Church." 

This  view  of  the  Canon,  one  would  suppose,  might  satisfy 
all  concerned.  It  corresponds  literally  to  the  language  of  the 
Canon.  It  secures  to  our  congregations,  in  full  measure,  the 
services  and  ministrations  of  our  Church,  and  having  done  this, 


14  A  Plea  for  Liberty  in  the  Church. 

it  leaves  us  free  to  unite  in  general  and  promiscuous  assemblies 
with  the  clergy  of  other  Churches,  in  testimony  of  our  fellow- 
ship, or  in  the  interest  of  some  great  cause  of  Christian  benevo- 
lence, or  for  any  other  purpose  which,  in  a  discreet  use  of  our 
liberty,  may  be  thought  desirable. 

I  wish  now  to  say  that  the  congregation  to  which  Dr.  Adams 
preached,  on  the  occasion  we  are  considering,  was  not  in  any 
sense  the  congregation  of  the  Ascension.  The  regular  services 
for  the  day  had  been  held.  The  public  were  invited  through 
the  newspapers  to  be  present  in  the  church  in  the  evening. 
This  was  done  not  to  evade  the  law,  but  to  comply  with  it 
honestly  and  fully,  both  in  the  letter  and  the  spirit.  Since  the 
Canon  expressly  limits  its  prohibition  to  a  congregation  of  this 
Church,  where  is  the  prohibition  in  regard  to  a  congregation 
not  of  this  Church  ? 

I  am  entitled,  of  course,  to  avail  myself  of  the  opinion  of  the 
House  of  Bishops,  already  referred  to,  as  to  the  use  of  churches 
by  "  respectable  congregations  "  on  "  any  occasion  of  emer- 
gency." But  this  opinion  is  not  needed  for  a  case  so  clear  as 
this ;  for  manifestly,  if  it  is  not  a  "  congregation  of  this 
Church,"  no  matter  whether  it  is  a  "respectable  congrega- 
tion "  or  not,  or  whether  it  is  "  any  occasion  of  emergency  " 
or  not,  it  is  not  touched  at  all  by  the  Canon,  and  the  course 
of  the  minister  is  unfettered  by  any  restriction. 

It  has  been  objected  by  some,  that  such  a  service  does  not, 
after  all,  answer  the  purpose  of  a  testimony  of  fellowship,  since 
it  is  not  in  a  regular  congregation  of  this  Church.  I  confess 
that  it  is  not  all  in  this  respect  which  I  could  desire.  But  at 
the  same  time  I  think  it  better,  in  this  as  in  all  matters,  to  go 
no  further  than  the  letter  of  the  law  will  allow.  Such  a  ser- 
vice at  least  subserves  this  most  important  purpose,  —  it  shows 
that  our  Church  is  no  more  exclusive  in  this  respect  in  regard 
to  non-episcopal  ministers,  than  to  episcopal  ministers  not  of  our 
Church.  And,  at  all  events,  it  is  at  least  as  satisfactory,  as  a 
testimony,  as  the  Greek  service  in  Trinity  Chapel,  which  has 
your  sanction,  as  a  testimony  of  fellowship  with  the  Russo- 
Greek  Church. 


A  Plea  for  Liberty  in  the  Church.  15 

Some,  however,  may  claim  that  the  admission  of  a  non- 
episcopal  divine  into  one  of  our  churches  might  be  lawful, 
under  certain  circumstances,  but  that  it  is  rendered  unlawful 
if  any  of  the  clergy  of  this  Church  participate  in  the  services. 
But  if  non-episcopal  ministers  can  be  admitted  into  our  churches 
at  all,  where  is  the  law  which  forbids  our  clergy  from  perform- 
ing any  service  which  would  be  proper  under  other  circum- 
stances ?     If  it  is  lawful  for  me  to  grant  the  use  of  my  church 
for  a  special  service,  and  invite  Dr.  Adams  to  preach,  just  as 
the  Rector  of  Trinity,  with  your  sanction,  granted  the  use  of 
Trinity  Chapel,  and  invited  an  Oriental  priest  to  officiate ;  what 
law  is  there  to  restrain  me  from  being  present  and  performing 
any  service,  as  a  clergyman  of  the  Church,  just  as  a  number 
of  our  clergy  were  present  in  their  official  capacity  at  the  cele- 
bration of  the  Greek  service,  and  participated  in  it  ?     Is  it  the 
mere  uniting  with  non-episcopal  clergymen  that  is  condemned  ? 
But  I  suppose  no  one  will  deny  that  I  might  lawfully  have  Dr. 
Adams  read  service  for  me,  and  then  preach  myself.     No  law 
is  violated,  although  here  is  a  decided  union  of  services.    What 
law  was  violated  by  the  two  clergymen  who  read  service  in  my 
church  when  Dr.  Adams  preached?  and  if  they  violated  no 
law,  how  can  their  act,  in  uniting  in  the  service,  render  my  act, 
in  granting  the  use  of  my  church  for  the  purpose,  unlawful  ? 

Suffer  me  to  say  a  word  in  regard  to  the  expediency  of  such 
a  service  at  that  time,  or,  if  the  opinion  of  the  House  of  Bishops 
is  thought  to  be  important  in  this  connection,  the  "  emergency  " 
under  which  I  acted.  This  I  shall  do  with  the  utmost  frank- 
ness, only  premising  that  since  no  one  else  is  appointed  to  judge 
of  the  "  emergency,"  it  must  be  done  by  the  minister  in  charge. 
The  "  emergency  "  did  not  arise  from  the  want  of  places  of 
worship  on  the  part  of  the  people  there  assembled.  The 
preacher,  on  that  occasion,  has  one  of  the  most  capacious  and 
splendid  churches  in  the  city.  But  there  are  such  things  as 
moral  emergencies,  and  in  my  opinion  such  an  emergency 
existed  at  that  time.  The  service  of  the  Russo-Greek  Church 
had  just  been  performed  in  Trinity  Chapel,  and  repeated  in 
St.  John's  Chapel.  The  emergency  which  justified  it  was 


16  A  Plea  for  Liberty  in  the  Church. 

not  the  want  of  room  for  the  few  adherents  of  the  Oriental 
Churches  in  this  city.  They  had  sufficiently  large  and  con- 
venient accommodations  afforded  them  by  the  generosity  of 
Trinity  Church  in  the  school-room  of  St.  John's  Chapel.  The 
emergency  consisted  in  the  opportunity  of  extending  an  act 
of  courtesy  to  the  Church  of  the  Russian  empire.  The  feel- 
ing which  prompted  the  act  was  admirable.  The  act  itself, 
in  my  view,  was  perfectly  lawful.  (Note  B.)  But  this  act 
standing  alone  presented  our  Church  in  this  community  in  a 
false  light.  It  naturally  made  the  impression  that  the  Church 
has  drawn  a  distinction  in  regard  to  such  special  services,  just 
where  she  has  carefully  avoided  doing  so,  that  is,  between  non- 
episcopal  ministers  and  episcopal  ministers  not  of  this  Church. 
It  warranted  the  inference  that  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  is  more  closely  affiliated  with  the  Churches  of  the  East 
than  with  the  non-episcopal  Churches  of  evangelic  faith,  here 
at  home.  This  inference,  so  naturally  drawn,  and  yet  so  un- 
just, was  exciting,  as  might  be  expected,  a  host  of  prejudices 
against  our  Church.  How  could  it  be  better  met  than  by  a 
similar  act  of  courtesy,  testifying  our  sympathy  with  the  Chris- 
tian brethren  around  us  ?  And  what  could  be  better  calculated 
to  display  the  truly  comprehensive  and  catholic  spirit  of  our 
Church  than  two  such  acts,  springing  from  widely  divergent 
sentiments  and  tendencies,  and  yet  both  lawfully  exercised  and 
charitably  regarded  in  the  same  communion  ? 

Were  it  not  that  you  regret  your  own  act  in  consenting  that 
Dr.  Schaff  should  hold  a  service  in  one  of  our  churches,  and 
declare  that  it  shall  never  be  repeated,  I  should  suppose  it 
impossible  that  you  could  regard  it  in  all  cases  as  unlawful  for 
such  a  service  by  a  non-episcopal  minister  to  be  allowed.  But 
your  position  renders  such  a  conclusion  inevitable,  for  surely, 
if  there  ever  was  an  "  emergency,"  it  existed  in  the  case  of 
Dr.  Schaff;  and  if  even  that  will  not  avail,  nothing  can  ever 
be  considered  as  warranting  such  services,  and  the  decision  of 
the  House  of  Bishops  covers  no  cases  which  can  possibly 
occur.  And  yet  in  the  same  letter  in  which  you  regret  your 
consent  in  this  case  and  admit  that  you  are  h'able  to  censure, 


A  Plea  fo?  Liberty  in  the  Church.  17 

you  justify  the  invitation  of  the  Oriental  priest  into  Trinity 
Chapel  as  a  testimony  of  fellowship  with  the  Greek  Church. 

I  am  of  course  entitled,  in  replying  to  the  Pastoral,  to  avail 
myself  of  your  expressed  view  of  the  law,  and  to  justify  my- 
self  upon  principles  which  you  yourself  have  admitted.     Now 
I  do  not  see  why  this  act  on  my  part,  now  under  considera- 
tion, is  not  exactly  parallel,  in  a  legal  point  of  view,  with  the 
invitation  given  by  the  rector  of  Trinity  Church,  with  your 
sanction,  to  the  Oriental  priest  to  celebrate  divine  service  in 
Trinity  Chapel.     It  appears  from  the  Pastoral  that  you  dis- 
criminate between  this  act  and  the  invitation  to  Dr.  Schaff, 
and  that  this  act  still  has  your  approval.     On  comparing  the 
two  cases  under  consideration,  it  is  evident  that  if  the  Canon 
prohibits  the  one,  it  prohibits  the  other,  for  neither  Father 
Agapius  nor  Dr.  Adams  is  a  minister  of  this  Church.     The 
congregation  at  the  Greek  service  was  composed  of  a  few  of 
the  members  of  that  communion  and  a  large  number  of  our 
own  people.      The  congregation  at  the  Ascension  was  even 
more  promiscuous.    At  the  Greek  service  several  ministers  of 
this  Church  were  present  in   their  vestments,  in  the   place 
where  prayers  are  usually  read,  and  participated  in  the  ser- 
vices, even  to  the  repetition  of  the  Nicene  Creed  without  the 
"filioque."   At  the  Ascension  certain  ministers  of  this  Church 
also  united  in  the  services.     The  rector  of  Trinity  Church 
acted  upon  what  he  considered  an  "  emergency."   I  only  claim 
for  myself  the  same  freedom  to  act,  and  the  same  right  to 
judge  what  constitutes  an  "  emergency,"  that  he  has  exercised. 
I  will  not  urge  the  parallel  between  the  case  I  am  now  con- 
sidering, and  your  sanction  of  the   invitation  given  to  Dr.  . 
SchafF  to  hold  a  service  in  the  Church  of  the  Holy  Commun- 
ion, for  you  have  expressed  your  regret  at  the  course  which 
in  that  case  you  pursued.     But  am  I  not  warranted  in  urging 
that  this  sanction  was  either  lawful  or  unlawful  ?     If  it  was 
lawful,  the  point  for  which  I  am  contending  is  established.    If 
it  was  unlawful,  and  you  were  not  clearly  aware  of  its  unlaw- 
fulness at  the  time,  it  follows  that  there  are  at  least  great  obscu- 
rity and  doubtfulness  about  the  law,  and  that  there  may  be 


18  A  Plea  for  Liberty  in  the   Church. 

perhaps  a  reasonable  difference  of  opinion  as  to  what  consti- 
tutes its  violation. 

The  discrimination  which  you  make  between  these  two 
cases,  and  the  whole  tenor  of  the  Pastoral,  lead  irresistibly  to 
the  conclusion,  that  it  is  not  the  officiating  in  our  churches  of 
those  who  are  not  ministers  of  this  Church  which  you  regard 
as  unlawful,  but  the  officiating  of  non-episcopal  ministers.  This 
distinction  must  rest,  necessarily,  on  the  assertion  of  the  inva- 
lidity of  non-episcopal  orders,  and  the  unlawfulness  of  their 
recognition.  Since  there  is  no  element  of  difference  between 
the  Greek  service  and  the  service  at  the  Ascension,  so  far  as 
the  law  is  concerned,  unless  this  recognition  of  non-episcopal 
orders  is  one,  it  follows  that,  in  your  opinion,  the  service  at 
the  Ascension  would  have  been  a  lawful  one,  had  it  not  in- 
volved such  a  recognition.  Now,  as  there  is  no  written  law  of 
the  Church  which  has  any  bearing  upon  this  point,  it  must  be 
your  view  that  such  a  recognition  is  inconsistent  with  the 
spirit  of  the  Church.  Although  this  is  a  very  vague  charge, 
I  have  no  wish  to  evade  it,  and  do  not  hesitate  to  claim,  with 
all  respect  and  deference,  that  the  recognition  of  the  validity 
of  non-episcopal  orders  is  in  accordance  with  the  spirit,  the 
history,  and  the  standards  of  our  Church. 

Our  Church  makes  a  "fundamental  distinction,"  in  her 
Canons,  between  laymen  and  non- episcopal  ministers.  She 
calls  the  latter  "  ministers,"  and  she  puts  them  upon  an  en- 
tirely different  footing  from  laymen  in  respect  to  her  own 
orders,  —  prescribing  a  different  process  by  which  they  come 
into  the  ministry  of  this  Church.  Now  what  constitutes  this 
difference  except  the  ministerial  status  of  such  persons  ?  She 
reordains  them,  it  is  true,  but  that  is  because  they  have  never 
been  ordained  to  minister  in  the  Episcopal  Church,  — just  as 
the  Churches  of  Geneva  formerly  reordained  those  who  went 
from  one  Church  to  another.  In  the  Preface  to  the  Prayer- 
Book  she  calls  the  various  communions  in  which  they  minister, 
"  Churches,"  —  and  this  not  merely  by  courtesy,  but  in  a  doc- 
ument setting  forth  as  clearly  as  possible  the  character  and 
position  of  this  Church.  The  compilers  of  our  Liturgy  and 


A  Plea  for  Liberty  in  the  Church.  19 

the  framers  of  our  Articles  held  this  liberal  view  most  decid- 
edly. The  definitions  of  the  Church  and  the  ministry,  in 
the  Thirty-nine  Articles,  were  purposely  drawn  up  so  as  to 
include  non-episcopal  Churches  and  ministers.  And  certainly 
they  could  not  be  better  adapted  for  that  purpose.  Nothing 
but  this  supposition,  even  if  there  were  not  the  most  conclu- 
sive historical  evidence  on  the  subject,  can  explain  the  fact, 
that  in  the  articles  of  faith  of  an  Episcopal  Church,  defining 
the  Church  and  the  ministry,  there  is  not  the  remotest  allusion 
to  episcopacy  or  episcopal  ordination. 

The  19th  Article  defines  the  Church :  "  The  visible  Church 
of  Christ  is  a  congregation  of  faithful  men,  in  the  which  the 
pure  Word  of  God  is  preached  and  the  sacraments  be  duly 
ministered  according  to  Christ's  ordinance,  in  all  those  things 
which  are  of  necessity  requisite  to  the  same."  *  Here  is  not 
one  word  of  episcopacy  as  a  note  of  the  Church,  and  yet  am 
I  not  solemnly  bound  to  regard  and  recognize  that  as  a  Church 
which  corresponds  to  this  definition  ?  The  23d  Article  is  en- 
titled, "  Of  Ministering  in  the  Congregation " :  "  It  is  not 

»  It  is  interesting  to  notice  the  agreement  of  this  article  with  those  of  the  conti- 
nental churches  on  the  same  subject. 

Qua;  (sc.  ecclesia)  quidem  quum  solius  Dei  sit  occulis  nota,  externis  tamen  oui- 
jusdam  ritibus  ab  ipso  Christo  institutis,  et  verbo  Dei  velut  publica  legitimaque  dis- 
ciphna  non  solum  cernitur  cognosciturque ;  sed  ita  constituitur,  ut  in  hac  sine  his  nemo 
nisi  singular!  Dei  privilegio  censeatur.  Harm.  Conf.  Sect.  x.  p.  9.  Conf.  Helv.' 

Prior.  Art.  XIV sed  illam  docemus  vere  esse  ecclesiam,  in  qua  signa  vel 

notae  mveniuntur  ecclesiae  verse.     Imprimis  vero  verbi  Dei  legitima  vel   sincera 

pnedicatio,  &c Simul  et  participant  sacramentis  a  Christo  institutis  et  ab 

apostohs  traditis.  -Ib.  p.  6,  Conf.  Helv.  Post.  cap.  XVII ubi  tamen  sit  (ec- 
clesia) quam  minime  contaminata  etiamde  infra  scriptis  signis  cognosci  potest, 

nimirum  ubicunque  Christus  in  concionibus  sacris  docetur,  sancti  evangelii  doctrina 
pure  pleneque  annuntiatur,  sacramenta  de  Christi  institutione  et  mandate,  sententia 

2t  voluntate  administrantur,  &c.  —  Ib.  pp.  10,  11,  Conf.  Bohem.  cap.  VIII 

simul  etiam  palam  affirmamus  ubi  verbum  Dei  non  recipittir  nee  ulla  est  professio 
obedientiae  quae  illi  debetur,  nee  ullus  sacramentorum  usus,  ibi  proprie  loquendo,  non 
posse  nos  judicare  ullam  esse  ecclesiam.  —  Ib.  p.  15,  Conf.  Gall.  Art.  XXVIII.  Dici- 
mus  igitur  ecclesiam  visibilem  in  hac  vita  coetum  esse  amplectentium  evangelitim 
isti,  et  recte  utentium  sacramentis,  &c.  —  Ib.  p.  21,  Conf.  Saxon.  Art.  XI.  Arbi- 
tramur  ....  ecclesiam  ....  in  eo  esse  loco  aut  gente  ubi  evangelion  Christi  sin- 
center  praedicatur,  et  sacramenta  ejus  recte,  juxta  institutionem  Christi,  admiriis- 

-Ib.  p.   27,  Conf.  Virtem.  Art.   XXXII ubicunque  sacrosanctum 

evangehum  et  sacramenta  exercentur,  facile  inde  scire  poterit  ubi  et  qui  sint  chris- 
tiana  ecclesia.  —  Ib.  p.  30,  Conf.  Suev.  Art.  XV. 


20  A  Plea  for  Liberty  in  the  Church. 

lawful  for  any  man  to  take  upon  him  the  office  of  public 
preaching,  or  ministering  the  sacraments  in  the  congregation, 
before  he  be  lawfully  called  and  sent  to  execute  the  same. 
And  those  we  ought  to  judge  lawfully  called  and  sent  which 
be  chosen  and  called  to  this  work  by  men  who  have  power 
given  unto  them  in  the  congregation  to  call  and  send  ministers 
into  the  Lord's  vineyard."  There  is  not  one  word  here  as  to 
episcopal  ordination,  and  yet  I  am  solemnly  bound  by  my  ordi- 
nation vows  to  regard  all  those  as  lawful  ministers  who  answer 
to  this  description,  although  I  am  not  to  account  them  to  be 
lawful  ministers,  in  the  Episcopal  Church,  unless  they  have 
been  episcopally  ordained. 

So  far  is  such  a  recognition  from  being  inconsistent  with  the 
spirit  and  history  of  our  Church,  that  we  find  it  constantly  in 
the  works  of  most  of  those  venerable  men  who  have  been  the 
glory  of  the  Church  of  England.  Mr.  Keble  himself  admits, 
in  his  preface  to  Hooker,  speaking  of  Jewel,  Whitgift,  Cooper, 
and  others,  (and  the  list  might  be  indefinitely  extended,)  that 
"  It  is  enough  with  them  to  show,  that  the  government  by  arch- 
bishops and  bishops  is  ancient  and  allowable  ;  they  never  ven- 
ture to  urge  its  exclusive  claim,  or  to  connect  the  succession 
with  the  validity  of  the  holy  sacraments."  I  do  not  refer  to 
these  opinions  of  our  divines  as  approving  them  in  all  cases. 
Some  of  them  take  far  too  low  views  of  episcopacy.  I  refer 
to  them  only  to  show  that  the  recognition  of  the  validity  of 
non-episcopal  orders  has  ever  been  held,  to  say  the  least,  to 
be  within  the  circle  of  lawful  opinions  in  the  Church.* 

In  the  "  Institution  of  a  Christian  Man,"  issued  by  the  bish- 
ops and  clerg  yin  1537,  we  find  this  language :  "  The  truth  is, 
that  in  the  New  Testament  there  is  no  mention  of  any  degrees 
or  distinctions  in  orders,  but  only  of  deacons  or  ministers,  and 
of  priests  or  bishops." 

The  views  of  Cranmer,  on  this  subject,  are  so  well  known 
that  any  quotation  from  his  works  is  unnecessary.  In  1563 

*  For  most  of  the  quotations  which  follow  I  am  indebted  to  Mr.  Wm.  Goode's  Work 
—  Vindication  of  the  Doctrine  of  tiie  Church  of  England  on  the  Validity  of  the  Ordert 
of  the  Scotch  and  Foreign  Non-Epiicopal  Churches. 


A  Plea  for  Liberty  in  the  Church.  21 

Dr.  Pilkington,  Bishop  of  Durham,  says :    "  The   privileges 
and  superiorities  which  bishops  have  above  other  ministers, 
are  rather  .granted  by  men  for   maintaining  of  better  order 
and  quietness  in  commonwealths,  than   commanded  by  God 
in  His  Word."  *     Archbishop  Whitgift  says  :  "  That  any  one 
kind  of  government  is  so  necessary  that  without  it  the  Church 
cannot    be  saved,    or  that  it  may   not  be  altered   into   some 
other  kind,  thought  to  be  more  expedient,  I  utterly  deny; 
and  the  reasons  that  move  me  so  to  do  be  these.     The  first  is 
because  I  find  no  one  certain  and  perfect  kind  of  government 
prescribed  or  commanded  in  the  Scriptures  to  the  Church  of 
Christ.     Secondly,  because  the  essential  notes  of  the  Church 
be  these  only,  —  the  true  preaching  of  the  Word  of  God,  and 
the  right  administration  of  the  sacraments."  f     Hooker  says : 
'  There  may  be  sometimes  very  just  and  sufficient  reason  to 
allow  ordination   made  without  a  bishop."  J     Saravia   says: 
"  This  also  is  true,  that  in  such  a  state  of  confusion  in  the 
Church,  when  all  the  bishops  fall  away  from  the  true  worship 
of  God  into  idolatry,  without  any  violation  of  the  government 
of  the  Church,  the  whole  authority  of  the  episcopal  govern- 
ment is  devolved  upon  the  pious  and  orthodox  presbyters, 
so  that  a  presbyter  clearly  may  ordain  presbyters."  §     Lord 
Bacon,  though  a  layman,  is  an  important  witness  to  the  preva- 
lent opinion  in  his  time.     He  says :  "  Some  indiscreet  persons 
have  been  bold  in  open  preaching  to  use  dishonorable  and  de- 
rogatory speech  and  censure  of  the  Churches  abroad;   and 
that  so  far  as  some  of  our  men,  as  I  have  heard,  ordained  in 
foreign  parts,  have  been  pronounced  to  be  no  lawful  minis- 
ters." ||     Bishop   Andrews  says :   "  Though  our  government 
be  of  divine  right,  it  follows  not  either  that  there  is  no  salva- 
tion, or  that  a  Church  cannot  stand  without  it.     He   must 
needs  be  stone-blind  that  sees  not  Churches  standing  without 
it."^[  Archbishop  Bramhall  says :  "  Many  Protestant  Churches 

*  Confut.  of  an  Addition.     Works,  ed.  Parker  Soc.  p.  493. 

t  Dff.  of  Ant.  to  Adm.,  1574,  p.  81. 

t  Ecd.  Pol.  vii.  14. 

§  Defens.  Tract  de  dio.  Ministr.  Ev.  gradibut,  cfc.,  ch.  ii.  p.  32,  from  the  Latin. 

||    Works,  by  Basil  Montagu.    London,  1827.    Vol.  VII.  p.  48. 

If  Wordtw.  Christ.  Instil.  Vol.  III.  p.  239. 


22  A  Plea  for  Liberty  in  the   Church. 

lived  under  kings  and  bishops  of  another  communion  ;  others 
had  particular  reasons  why  they  could  not  continue  or  intro- 
duce bishops."  "  I  know  that  there  is  great  difference1  be- 
tween a  VALID  and  a  REGULAR  ordination."  *  Archbishop  Ban- 
croft, when  it  was  proposed  that  certain  candidates  for  the 
Scotch  Episcopate  should  first  be  ordained  presbyters,  as  not 
having  been  ordained  by  a  bishop,  replied :  "  That  thereof 
there  was  no  necessity,  seeing  where  bishops  could  not  be 
had,  the  ordination  given  by  presbyters  must  be  esteemed 
lawful."  f  Archbishop  Usher  says :  "  I  do  protest  that  with 
like  affection,  I  should  receive  the  blessed  sacrament  at  the 
hands  of  the  Dutch  ministers,  if  I  were  in  Holland,  as  I 
should  at  the  hands  of  the  French  ministers,  if  I  were  in  Cha- 
rentone."  J  Bishop  Hall  says  :  "  Blessed  be  God,  there  is  no 
difference  in  any  essential  matter  betwixt  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land and  her  sisters  of  the  Reformation."  "  The  only  differ- 
ence is  in  the  form  of  outward  administration,  wherein  also 
we  are  so  far  agreed,  as  that  we  all  profess  this  form  not  to  be 
essential  to  the  being  of  a  Church."  §  Bishop  Morton  says : 
"  Where  the  bishops  degenerate  into  wolves,  there  the  pres- 
byters regain  their  ancient  right  of  ordaining."  ||  Dean  Field 
says :  "  And  who  knoweth  not,  that  all  presbyters,  in  cases  of 
necessity,  may  absolve  and  reconcile  penitents,  a  thing  in 
ordinary  course  appropriated  unto  bishops?  And  why  not, 
by  the  same  reason  ordain  presbyters  and  deacons  in  cases  of 
like  necessity  ?  "  ^[  Dean  Cosin  says :  "  I  do  not  see  but  that 
both  you  and  others  that  are  with  you  may  (either  in  case  of 
necessity,  when  you  cannot  have  the  sacrament  among  your- 
selves, or  in  regard  of  declaring  your  unity  in  professing  the 
same  religion,  which  you  and  they  do)  go  otherwhiles  to  com- 
municate reverently  with  them  of  the  French  Church." ' 
Bishop  Stillingfleet,  in  Irenicum,  maintains  that  the  stoutest 

*    Works  of,  ed.  Vol.  III.  pp.  475,  4T6. 

t  Spotiswood's  Hist.  Church  and  Slate  of  Scotland,  4th  ed.,  1677,  folio,  p.  514. 

{  Judg.  of  Archbishop  of  Armagh,  <fc.,  London,  1657,  p.  127. 

§   The  Peacemaker,  §  6, 1647.     Works,  by  Pratt,  Vol.  VIII.  p.  56. 

||  Apol.  Caihol.  pt.  1,  lib.  1,  c.  21,  2d  ed.,  London,  1606,  8vo,  p.  74. 

f  Of  the  Church,  ed.  1628,  lib.  3,  c.  39,  p.  156. 

**  Conclusion  of  a  Letter  written  from  Paris,  in  1650,  to  a  Mr.  Cordel. 


A  Plea  for  Liberty  in  the  Church.  23 

champions  for  Episcopacy  had  admitted  that  ordination  by 
presbyters  in  case  of  necessity  is  valid.  Dean  Sherlock  says : 
"  I  do  not  make  Episcopacy  so  absolutely  necessary  to  Cath- 
olic communion  as  to  unchurch  all  Churches  which  have  it 
not."  *  Archbishop  Sancroft  exhorts  his  clergy  to  "  warmly 
and  affectionally  exhort  them  (the  Protestant  Dissenters)  to 
join  with  us  in  daily  fervent  prayer  to  the  God  of  peace  for 
the  universal  blessed  union  of  all  Reformed  Churches,  both  at 
home  and  abroad,  against  our  common  enemies."  f  Arch- 
bishop Wake  says :  "  Ecclesias  Reformatas  etsi  in  aliquibus  a 
nostra  Anglicana  dissentientes,  libenter  amplector."  J  Arch- 
bishop Seeker  says :  "  Our  inclination  is  to  live  in  friendship 

with  all  the  Protestant  Churches We  show  our 

regard  to  that  of  Scotland  as  often  as  we  have  opportunity."  § 
Bishop  Tomline  says:  "I  readily  acknowledge  that  there  is 
no  precept  in  the  New  Testament  which  commands  that  every 
Church  should  be  governed  by  bishops."  ||  Archbishop  How- 
ley  speaks  of  the  foreign  Reformed  Churches  as  "  the  less  per- 
fectly constituted  of  the  Protestant  Churches  of  Europe."  f 
Archbishop  Sumner,  as  is  well  known  from  the  recent  contro- 
versies on  the  subject,  declared  his  belief  in  the  validity  of 
non-episcopal  ordination.  Besides  this,  to  say  nothing  of  the 
practice  of  the  Church  Missionary  Society,  the  whole  bench 
of  bishops  has  had  for  more  than  a  century  the  direction  of 
the  Venerable  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel,  and 
with  its  sanction  this  society  has  constantly  sent  forth  to 
preach  the  Word  and  administer  the  sacraments,  those  who 
have  had  only  non-episcopal  ordination. 

So  far  also  were  the  Reformers  and  divines  of  our  Church 
from  holding  that  non-episcopal  divines  were  "  incompetent  to 
teach  "  our  people,  that  Cranmer  invited  Martyr  and  Bucer  to 
the  universities  of  Oxford  and  Cambridge,  to  train  up  the 

*  Vindication  of  Protestant  Principles.    Gibson's  Preserv.  Vol.  III.  p.  410. 

t  D'Oyly's  Life  of  Sancroft,  I.  325. 

J  Mosheim,  by  Maclaine,  Vol.  VI.  p.  184,  ed.  1826. 

§  Answer  to  Mayhew,  p.  68. 

||  Exposition  of  Art.  23,  ed.  1799,  p.  397. 

Tf  Statement  respecting  Jerusalem  Bishopric,  p.  5 


24  A  Plea  for  Liberty  in  the  Church. 

clergy ;  and  the  Convocation  of  Canterbury,  with  Archbishop 
Whitgift  at  its  head,  appointed  only  one  book  besides  the  Bible 
to  be  studied  by  the  clergy,  and  that  was  a  work  by  Bullinger, 
of  Zurich,  a  non-episcopal  divine.* 

With  such  testimony  as  this,  who  can  reasonably  deny  that 
the  recognition  of  non-episcopal  orders  is  in  accordance  with 
the  spirit,  the  history,  and  the  standards  of  our  Church  ? 

I  regret  that  the  Pastoral  has  placed  this  subject  on  ground 
which  renders  acquiescence  in  it  impossible.  For  it  does  not 
merely  express  an  opinion  that  no  orders  but  episcopal  are 
valid.  Such  an  expression  of  opinion  would  interfere  with  no 
one's  liberty.  It  does  not  merely  claim  that  this  Church  has 
the  right  to  regulate  her  own  internal  affairs,  and  to  exclude 
all  ministries  but  her  own.  That  could  have  been  admitted 
without  any  sacrifice  of  principle.  The  Pastoral  goes  further. 
It  takes  two  cases  analogous  in  all  points,  so  far  as  the  law  of 
the  Church  is  concerned,  and  it  admits  the  one  and  rejects  the 
other,  simply  because  in  the  latter  case  there  is  an  implied 
recognition  of  non-episcopal  orders.  It  pronounces  the  one 
lawful  and  the  other  unlawful.  The  inevitable  conclusion  is 
that  it  is  not  lawful  for  one  of  our  clergy  to  express,  by  an  act 
in  itself  lawful,  his  opinion  that  non-episcopal  orders  are  valid ; 
nay  more,  it  pronounces  the  opinion  itself  unlawful,  for  how 
can  it  be  lawful  to  hold  an  opinion  which  cannot  be  expressed 
by  lawful  acts  ?  And  if  this  opinion  is  not  lawful,  then  we  are 
bound  to  all  the  logical  consequences  which  its  denial  involves, 
—  to  the  monstrous  assumption  that  this  Church  is  the  Church 
of  Christ  in  this  land,  that  in  her  alone  are  treasured  up  the 
covenanted  blessings  of  grace,  and  that  all  outside  of  her  fold 
are  left  to  the  uncovenanted  mercies  of  God.  It  is  impossible 
in  this  country,  and  in  this  nineteenth  century,  to  accept  such 
a  position  and  such  consequences  as  these. 

If  I  have  established  the  points  which  I  proposed  to  con- 
sider, it  follows  that  it  is  allowable,  in  this  Church,  to  recog- 
nize, by  any  lawful  act,  the  validity  of  non-episcopal  orders  ; 
that  the  admission  into  our  churches  of  non-episcopal  ministers, 

*  Preface  to  Bullinger's  Decades,  ed.  Parker  Soc. 


A  Plea  for  Liberty  in  the  Church.  25 

with  such  congregations  as  may  assemble,  on  any  "emer- 
gency," is  a  lawful  act ;  that  the  minister  of  the  Church  is  the 
proper  judge  of  what  constitutes  an  "emergency"  ;  that  what 
would  otherwise  constitute  an  "  emergency  "  is  not  vitiated  by 
the  fact  that  a  recognition  of  non-episcopal  orders  is  involved  ; 
and,  finally,  that  it  is  lawful  (there  being  no  law  prohibiting  it) 
for  the  ministers  of  this  Church  to  participate  in  such  ser- 
vices. 

So  satisfied  am  I  that  this  view  of  the  law  is  correct,  and 
that  it  is  impossible  to  bring  the  present  case  within  its  pro- 
hibition, that  I  venture  to  predict  that  an  effort  will  be  made 
in  the  next  General  Convention  —  perhaps  successfully  —  to 
enact  a  canon  which  will  prevent  anything  of  the  kind  in 
future.  While  I  should  regret  any  such  action,  as  tending  to 
present  our  Church  as  needlessly  exclusive,  it  would  still  be  a 
yielding  of  the  whole  ground  for  which  I  am  contending,  viz., 
that  the  admission  of  non-episcopal  services  into  our  churches 
on  special  occasions  is  not  a  violation  of  the  present  law  of  the 
Church.  And  I  venture  also  to  predict,  that,  if  any  such 
canon  is  passed,  it  will  make  no  distinction  between  non-episco- 
pal ministers  and  episcopal  ministers  not  in  communion  with 
this  Church.  I  cannot  believe  that  the  Episcopal  Church  in 
this  country  is  prepared  for  such  an  excess  of  exclusiveness  as 
such  a  distinction  involves.  But  if  the  spirit  of  our  Church 
has  indeed  become  thus  exclusive  and  intolerant,  and  we  have 
ceased  to  hold  the  views  and  cherish  the  feelings  of  our  Re- 
formers and  greatest  divines,  let  it  be  known,  and  exhibited 
in  our  laws,  so  that  we  may  no  longer  receive  a  credit  for 
liberality  which,  in  that  case,  we  so  poorly  deserve. 

I  have  felt  it  to  be  necessary,  my  dear  Bishop,  to  meet  the 
charge  contained  in  your  Pastoral,  that  the  act  now  under  dis- 
cussion is  contrary  to  the  law  .and  to  the  spirit  of  our  Church. 
I  trust  that  this  "has  been  thoroughly  and  successfully  accom- 
plished. But  a  far  greater  importance  attaches  itself  to  this 
subject  than  that  which  belongs  to  a  mere  question  of  ecclesias- 
tical law,  or  even  of  the  spirit  of  our  Church.  It  has  its  roots 
far  down  in  the  very  substratum  of  Christianity  itself.  The 


26  A  Pica  for  Liberty  in  the  Church. 

prominent  idea  in  the  Pastoral  is  the  exclusive  validity  of 
episcopal  orders.  Even  when  this  is  not  expressly  asserted, 
the  refusal  to  recognize  the  validity  of  any  other  orders,  ig 
practically  to  assert  the  exclusive  validity  of  our  own.  Now 
this  exclusive  validity  may  be  regarded  as  a  mere  arbitrary 
arrangement  established  by  Christ  through  His  Apostles,  and 
designed  to  be  permanent  in  the  Church.  As  thus  held, 
though  it  is  wanting  in  historical  evidence,  and  is  un philo- 
sophical, not  to  say  unscriptural,  in  its  character,  it  may  be 
comparatively  harmless.  But  a  theory  held  on  such  grounds 
would  not  be  likely  to  excite  any  great  enthusiasm  in  its  de- 
fence. This  theory  has  been  held  of  late  years  in  far  different 
relations,  and  defended  upon  far  different  grounds.  It  has 
been,  and  is  now,  allied  with  principles  hostile  to  the  plainest 
and  most  fundamental  of  the  truths  of  the  Gospel.  I  do  not 
mean  to  say  that  this  alliance  is  obvious  to  all  those  by  whom 
this  theory  is  held ;  but  I  affirm  the  natural,  not  to  say  neces- 
sary, connection  of  this  theory  with  principles  which  are  sub- 
versive of  the  whole  plan  of  salvation.  Let  us  look  at  this 
view  of  the  subject  for  a  moment.  When  the  absolute  neces- 
sity of  episcopal  ordination  is  strenuously  insisted  upon,  the 
natural  conclusion  will  be,  that  it  is  regarded  not  as  a  merely 
arbitrary  arrangement,  but  as  resting  upon  some  great  prin- 
ciple in  the  Christian  system.  The  writers  of  the  "  Tracts 
for  the  Times  "  have  told  us  what  this  principle  is.  They 
assert  that  the  succession  from  the  Apostles  in  the  line  of 
bishops  is  essential  to  the  valid  administration  of  the  Eucharist, 
and  that  the  Eucharist  is  necessary  to  salvation.  This  claim, 
then,  —  and  it  is  the  only  one  which  gives  any  dignity  to  the 
assertion  of  the  exclusive  validity  of  episcopal  ordination,  —  is 
a  claim  that,  to  a  certain  class  or  order  of  men  is  intrusted  a 
power  upon  the  exercise  of  which  the  salvation  of  others  is 
made  to  depend.  We  can  see  at  once  why  a  class,  claiming 
to  be  endowed  with  such  awful  attributes,  should  scrupulously 
guard  their  transmission,  and  reserve  to  itself  all  the  privileges 
and  powers  which  such  a  lineage  confers.  We  can  understand 
at  once  what  a  terrible  engine  of  temporal  and  spiritual  des- 


A  Plea  for  Liberty  in  the  Church.  27 

potism  such  a  class  must  become,  if  it  can  only  impose  upon 
the  credulity  of  mankind.     But  more  than  this,  these  are  the 
very  claims  of  a  mediatorial  priesthood.     To  give  these  claims 
a  wider  scope  and  greater  dignity,  the  priest  must  himself  offer 
an  atoning  sacrifice,  and  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper 
becomes  a  repetition  of  the  sacrifice  upon  the  cross.    To  extend 
still  further  the  sphere  of  these  monstrous  prerogatives,  various 
ceremonies  are  elevated  to  a  mystical  and  sacramental  character, 
and  every  stage  in  the  soul's  salvation  is  subjected  to  priestly 
intervention.     It  is  impossible  not  to  see  how  completely  this 
system  repudiates  the  whole  idea  of  justification  by  faith,  and 
shuts  out  Christ  from  the  soul.     And  that  I  do  not  over-esti- 
mate the  natural  alliance  of  these  claims  of  a  mediatorial  priest- 
hood with  the  claim  of  the  exclusive  validity  of  episcopal  orders, 
will,  I  think,  be  plain  from  the  following  quotation  from  the 
celebrated  letter  of  Mr.  Perceval  to  the  editor  of  the  "  Irish 
Ecclesiastical  Journal."     This  letter  informs  us,  on  the  very 
best  authority,  what  were  the  real  views  and  purposes  of  the 
writers  of  the  "  Tracts  for  the  Times."    They  say  themselves, 
as  quoted  by  Mr.  Perceval,  "  Considering,  1.  That  the  only 
way  of  salvation  is  the  partaking  of  the  body  and  blood  of  our 
sacrificed  Redeemer ;  2.  That  the  mean  expressly  authorized 
by  Him  for  that  purpose  is  the  holy  sacrament  of  His  Supper ; 
3.  That  the  security  by  Him,  no  less  expressly  authorized,  for 
the  continuance  and  due  application  of  that  sacrament,  is  the 
apostolical  commission  of  the  bishops,  and  under  them  the  pres- 
byters of  the  Church We  desire  to  pledge  ourselves 

one  to  another,  reserving  our  canonical  obedience,  as  follows : 
1.  To  be  on  the  watch  for  all  opportunities  of  inculcating,  on 
all  committed  to  our  charge,  a  due  sense  of  the  inestimable 
privilege  of  communion  with  our  Lord,  through  the  successors 
of  the  Apostles"  &c.,  &c. 

Upon  this  foundation  the  whole  superstructure  of  the  Trac- 
tarian  theology  is  built.  I  freely  confess  that  I  cannot  but 
regard  it  with  grief  and  alarm,  as  a  whole,  or  in  its  various 
parts,  by  whomsoever  it  is  held,  or  with  whatever  learning  or 
piety  it  is  allied.  And  although  this  system  has  been  shattered 


28  A  Plea  for  Liberty  in  the  Church. 

by  the  sturdy  defenders  of  the  faith,  its  disjointed  fragments 
are  still  so  formidable  as  seriously  to  obstruct  the  progress  of 
the  Gospel  and  the  Church ;  there  are  snares  at  our  feet  in 
which  we  are  in  danger  of  being  involved,  and  it  is  solemnly 
incumbent  upon  us  now,  as  ever,  to  "  stand  fast  in  the  liberty 
wherewith  Christ  has  made  us  free,  and  to  be  not  entangled 
again  with  the  yoke  of  bondage." 

I  have  no  wish  that  the  opinions  and  principles  which  I  have 
advanced,  and  which  are  so  widely  accepted  in  this  Church, 
should  be  imposed  in  any  way  upon  those  who  dissent  from 
them.  If  I  had  the  power  to-day,  I  would  not  restrict,  in  the 
slightest  degree,  the  advocacy,  by  word  or  act,  of  opinions  the 
opposite  of  these.  Truth  does  not  need  the  aid  of  pains  and 
penalties  to  secure  its  triumph.  I  have  more  than  once  had 
occasion  to  plead  for  the  toleration  of  practices  which  I  believe 
to  be  inconsistent  with  the  spirit  of  our  Church.  I  have  done 
this  simply  because  no  man  or  assembly  of  men  can  claim  to 
be  as  catholic  as  the  Church  itself.  I  claim  the  same  toler- 
ation for  my  own  opinions  and  for  the  expression  of  them,  not 
only  by  word,  but  by  any  act  which,  in  itself,  is  lawful. 

I  trust,  my  revered  and  beloved  Bishop,  that  the  explanation 
which  I  have  given  of  the  act  in  question  may  present  the 
circumstances  under  which  it  was  performed  in  a  new  light  to 
your  mind,  and  satisfy  you  that  it  is  not  contrary  to  the  law 
of  the  Church.  Your  expressions  of  sincere  respect  and  affec- 
tionate regard  for  those  for  whom  your  Pastoral  is  specially 
intended  are  most  gratifying  to  me.  I  trust  that  I  may  do 
more  to  deserve  them,  and  that  I  may  long  continue  to  enjoy 
the  delightful  personal  and  official  intercourse  with  you,  which 
has  been  my  privilege  since  I  have  been  in  this  Diocese.  And 
now,  asking  your  blessing  upon  myself  and  my  labors  in  the 
Lord's  vineyard, 

I  am,  with  great  respect  and  affection, 

Faithfully  yours  in  the  Church, 

JOHN  COTTON  SMITH. 
NEW-YORK, 

RECTORY  OF  THE  ASCENSION, 
June,  1865. 


APPENDIX. 


NOTE   A.  — p.  10. 

MY  attention  has  just  been  called  to  an  extract  in  the  "  Christian 
Times  "  from  De  Foe's  "  History  of  the  Plague  of  London."  According 
to  this,  it  seems  that  since  the  passage  of  the  Act  of  Uniformity,  during  the 
prevalence  of  the  plague,  the  pulpits  of  the  Establishment  were  in  many 
cases  occupied  by  Dissenting  clergymen,  the  ministers  of  the  Church  gladly 
uniting  with  them,  and  availing  themselves  of  their  assistance.  Will  it  be 
contended  that  this  is  an  extreme  case,  wrong  in  principle,  and  only  to  be 
justified  as  an  exception  which  "  proves  the  general  rule  "  ?  It  is  strange, 
indeed,  that  the  awful  presence  of  death  should  warrant  "  violations  of 
law  "  and  "  faithlessness  to  ordination  vows  " ;  and  that  ministers  who  are 
"  incompetent  to  teach "  our  people  in  health,  should  be  able  to  prepare 
them  for  death  and  eternity.  It  would  be  well  if  we  were  at  all  times 
more  sensible  of  the  nearness  of  another  world,  and  if  those  acts  which 
we  all  feel  to  be  suitable  under  such  circumstances  were  in  a  far  greater 
degree  the  acts  of  our  daily  life.  De  Foe  well  says :  "  Here  we  may  observe, 
and  I  hope  it  will  not  be  amiss  to  take  notice  of  it,  that  a  near  view  of 
death  would  soon  reconcile  men  of  good  principles  one  to  another,  and 
that  it  is  chiefly  owing  to  our  easy  situation  in  life,  and  our  putting  these 
things  far  from  us,  that  our  breaches  are  fomented,  ill-blood  continued, 
prejudices,  breach  of  charity  and  of  Christian  union  so  much  kept  up  and 
so  far  carried  on  among  us  as  it  is.  Another  plague-year  would  recon- 
cile all  these  differences ;  a  close  conversing  with  death,  or  with  diseases 
that  threaten  death,  would  scum  off"  the  gall  from  our  tempers,  remove 
the  animosities  among  us,  and  bring  us  to  see  with  different  eyes  than 
those  which  we  looked  on  things  with  before." 

NOTE   B.  — p.  16. 

My  excellent  friend,  Dr.  Muhlenberg,  while  referring  most  kindly  to 
my  "Plea  for  Liberty  in  the  Church,"  takes  exception  to  my  opinion  that 
the  holding  of  the  Greek  Service  in  Trinity  Chapel  was  lawful.  His  ar- 
gument seems  to  me  perfectly  conclusive,  so  far  as  the  holding  of  such  a 
service  in  one  of  our  congregations  is  concerned,  but  I  do  not  see  that  it 
applies  to  the  lending  of  a  church  for  that  purpose.  In  considering  the 


80  Appendix. 

lawfulness  of  this  service,  I  do  not  think  any  subsequent  revelations  as  to 
the  ecclesiastical  position  of  the  officiating  priest,  or  the  character  of  the 
service  itself,  should  be  taken  into  account.  It  is  no  more  than  fair  to 
those  who  were  concerned  in  this  service,  that  what  they  supposed  to  be 
the  facts  in  the  case  should  be  considered.  They  had  every  reason  to  sup- 
pose that  the  priest  was  what  he  purported  to  be,  and  that  the  service 
was  free  from  all  "  superstitious  observances."  This  being  the  case,  and 
the  Russo-Greek  Church  having  so  many  claims  upon  our  interest,  I  do 
consider  the  motives  which  prompted  the  act  as  admirable,  and  the  act 
itself  as  lawful. 


LETTERS  TO  A  FRIEND, 


TOUCHING   THE   LATE   PASTOEAL 


OF  THK 


EIGHT  RET.  BISHOP  POTTER. 


BY 

W.     A.     MUHJL 


LETTERS,   ETC. 


•No.  I. 

MY  DEAK  DOCTOR  :  You  see  I  have  not  been  in  haste  to  CVOSK 
the  wishes  of  yourself  and  others  of  my  good  friends,  who  have 
importuned  me  to  make  no  public  rejoinder  to  the  recent  Pas- 
toral Letter  of  my  diocesan.     I  have  weighed  what  you  and^they 
have  urged  with  a  kindness  and  earnestness  hard  to  be  resisted. 
I  have  taken  sufficient  time  for  deliberation.     Impulse  has  subsided, 
but  convictions  remain,   and  I  cannot  see   that  I  ought   to  be 
silent.     Independently  of  other  considerations  to  which  I  would 
not  affect  indifference,  you  must  allow  me  to  say  that,  in  my 
humble  judgment,  the  Pastoral  is  calculated  to  do  harm  to  our 
Church.      It  sets  her  in   a  false   attitude   toward  surrounding 
Christians.     It  attributes  an  exclusiveness  which  does  not  belong- 
to  her,  and  puts  her  ministers  in  an  ecclesiastical  bondage  foreign 
to  her  spirit,  and  not  imposed  by  her  laws.      The  absence  of  any 
remonstrance  on  the  part  of  those  who  have  given  occasion  to  the 
document  could  be  construed  only  as  an  assent  to  its  doctrines. 
Accordingly  they  have  made  their  replies,  and  now,  seeing  I  am 
"  in  the  same  condemnation,"  there  is  no  reason  why  I  should 
refrain,  unless  I  would  seem  wanting  in  sympathy  with  their  justi- 
fication both  of  themselves  and  their  Church. 

I  deprecate  myself,  as  heartily  as  you  can  for  me,  any  open  an- 
tagonism to  my  Bishop,  although  entirely  free  from  all  personal 
feelings.  But  how  is  it  to  be  avoided  ?  The  Pastoral  is  un- 
mistakable in  its  meaning  and  intent.  Besides  its  implications, 
which  cannot  be  granted,  it  .is  a  sort  of  Manifesto  of  the  policy, 
in  the  premises,  to  be  pursued  in  this  diocese.  The  last  num- 
ber of  the  Church  Review  says :  "  This  Pastoral  has  a  history, 
and  is  one  of  the  most  important  documents  ever  issued  by  an 
American  Bishop."  In  some  respects  it  is  so,  and  if  so,  it 
must  be  treated  accordingly.  It  challenges  attention.  With  all 


the  respect  and  esteem  due  to  its  author,  which  none  accord  more 
sincerely  than  myself,  it  is  a  fair  subject  for  public  examination, 
and  must  be  tried  on  the  ground  of  its  own  merits. 

First  of  all,  it  was  premature.     The  alleged  evils  which  called 
it  forth  were  evils  in  a  family— in  a  household  of  the  Church. 
They  were  confined  to  a  very  few,  and  were  only  beginning  to  make 
trouble.    Might  they  not,  then,  at  least  at  first,  have  been  amica- 
bly discussed  within  doors  ?    Might  there  not  have  been  private 
opportunities  for  mutual  explanations  ?     Should  processes  of  law 
have  been  hinted  at  so  soon  ?     Those  brothers  of  the  family  "  Avho 
feel  themselves  aggrieved  by  practices  at  variance,  as  they  believe, 
with  the  laws  and  usages  of  the  Church,"  and  of  whom  the  Bishop 
hopes  that  they  "  will  not  make  those  practices  the  subject  of  a 
formal  complaint"— suppose  they  had  been  brought  together,  with 
their  brothers  who  grieved  them,  in  a  friendly  way.  at  the  father's 
house,  to  talk  over  matters,  and  to  understand  one  another,  would 
the  former  still  have  thought  only  of  a  legal  prosecution  ?  or  if 
after  such  a  conference  they  did  not  agree,  could  they  have  been 
still  so  unbrotherly  as  not  to  submit  their  differences  to  an  um- 
pire of  one  or  two  judicious  elders,  whose  sentence  hardly  would 
have  been,  that  the  offenders  should  receive  a  public  reprimand 
from  the  Bishop  ? 

Among  the  reasons  which  the  author  of  the  Pastoral  gives  for 
its  appearance  one  is,  "  because  he  has  been  appealed  to  by  both 
clergymen  and  laymen  to  do  something  to  check  what  seems  a 
growing  evil."  This  reason  would  have  been  more  satisfactory,  if 
it  had  said  of  the  appealing  clergymen  and  laymen,  that,  beside 
not  being  "  busybodies  and  censorious,"  they  were  impartial 
judges  and  unprejudiced  by  their  modes  of  thinking  on  the  ques- 
tions concerned.  The  Bishop  has  never  shown  himself  a  partisan 
in  any  of  his  actions  toward  his  clergy.  He  has  been  remarkably 
impartial.  It  is  to  be  regretted,  in  the  present  case,  that  there  is 
room  to  fear  that  he  has  yielded  to  one-sided  counsel. 

"  Above  all,"  he  says,  giving  the  chief  reason  for  the  Pastoral, 
"  because  he  hopes  that  there  are  those  who  may  have  acted 
hastily,  and  who  upon  a  candid  and  serious  review  of  their  obliga- 
tions and  duties  will  change  their  views  of  what  it  is  right  for 
them  to  do  as  Ministers  of  the  Church,"  etc.  Doubtless  this  hope 
is  sincere,  but  is  it  founded  on  a  knowledge  of  human  nature  ? 
When  men  have  acted  hastily  and  have  been  unmindful  of  their 
obligations,  are  they  likely  to  review  them  candidly  and  seriously, 


and  to  change  their  views  in  consequence  of  being  lectured  on  the 
subject  before  the  world  ?  Rather,  are  they  not  closed  against 
what  private  appeal  might  have  left  them  open  to,  and  roused  to 
say  all  they  can  in  their  defence  ?  A  father  would  hardly  think 
of  amending  a  son  by  putting  his  faults  in  pamphlet  or  newspaper, 
though  he  might  do  it  in  the  sweetest  manner  possible. 

The  Pastoral,  indeed,  imputes  nothing  directly  to  any  one.* 
But  does  it  mean  to  impute  nothing  ?  If  so,  then  what  is  its  sig- 
nificance ?  What  cause  has  there  been  for  it  ?  If  its  purpose,  oz- 
one of  its  purposes,  be  not  to  censure,  and  censure  severely,  certain 
acts  of  certain  persons,  every  body  mis-reads  it.  But  it  is  plain 
enough.  Every  body  perceives  what  is  aimed  at  in  its  abstractions, 
its  hypotheses,  its  hints,  and  (I  can  think  of  no  better  word)  its 
insinuations.  It  might  just  as  well  have  said,  A,  B,  and  C,  having 
clone  so  and  so,  have  violated  promises  made  with  all  the  sanctity 

Except  to  myself,  and  that  it  does,  on  a  minor  point  indeed,  but  very  di- 
rectly.     In  regard  to  the  preaching  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Schaff,  in  the  Church  of  the 
Holy  Communion,  it  says:  "Certainly  the  specious  plea  urged  on  that  occasion  will 
never  be  admitted  again  by  the  present  Bishop."     The  specious  plea  was  this  : 
For  some  time  I  had  thought  it  would  be  a  good  thing  to  give  our  Churches,  when 
not  otherwise  used,  on  Sunday  evenings,  for  sermons  by  native  German   preachers, 
with  the  view  of  inducing  the  attendance  of  some  of  that  large  portion  of  our  Ger- 
man population  neglecting  public  worship  altogether.     Many  who  send  their  children 
to  our  Sunday-schools,  will  not  themselves  come  to  Church.   I  believed  that  if  special 
efforts  were  made  to  bring  them,  not  just  to  Mission  Halls,  with  which  their  foreign 
feelings  won't  associate  the  ideas  of  worship,  but  to  our  goodly  sanctuaries,  giving 
them  a  cordial  American  welcome  there,  putting  our  organs  in  the  hands  of° their 
countrymen  to  lead  them  in  chorales  of  their  fatherland— by  such  means  I  believed 
something  might  be  done  in  bringing  them  to  hear  earnest  preachers  of  their  own, 
not  as  of  any  one  denomination,  but  as  Evangelists  declaring  to  them  the  Gospel^ 
the  same  in  Germany  and  America.      Full  of  my  scheme  for  a  German  Lecture,  I 
went  to  the  Bishop  for  his  approval  of  it,  proposing  to  make  a  beginning  in  the 
Church  of  the  Holy  Communion.     He  assented  to  it,  without  any  pressing  on  my 
part,  or  hesitation  on  his.     I  left  him  gratified  with  his  readiness  in  thc°matter. 
As  he  now  says  he  "  gave  a  bare  assent,"  I  must  suppose  that   he  did,  but  that  he 
was  urged  by  any  specious  plea  I  cannot  admit.     He  knows  how  careful  I  was  to 
adhere  to  the  understanding  that  the  church  should  be  considered  as  loaned  for  the 
occasion,  for  I  afterward  informed  him  that  I  had  declined  the  offer  of  one  of  our 
clergymen  to  read  the  Evening  Prayer  in  German,  before  Dr.  Schaff  'a  sermon, 
that  there  might  be  none  of  the  intermingling  of  services  to  which  he  objected.     I 
made  «se  of  no  pretext ;  I  was  open  and  straightforward  throughout. 

Some  three  months  afterward  the  Bishop,  at  my  request,  allowed  the  use  of  the 
same  church,  for  a  sermon  by  a  German  Lutheran  divine,  who  then  thought  of 
coming  into  our  Church.  The  purpose,  a  special  one,  was  approved  by  the  Bishop, 
but  no  specious  plea  was  urged. 


6 

of  an  oath,  and  this  moreover  it  would  have  the  world  to  under- 
stand.     What  else  is  to  be  inferred  from  that  citation  of  the  ordi- 
nation vows,  and  of  that  emphatic  reminder  of  the  solemn  circum- 
stances under  which  they  were  made  ?    If  this  was  intended  only 
for  the  clergy,  it  was  superfluous.    A  simple  reference  to  what  they 
arc  so  familiar  with,  would  have  been  sufficient.     It  is  spread  be- 
fore  the  public  eye,  and  wherefore  ?      No  caveat  appears  against 
the  conclusion  too  obvious  not  to  be  drawn.    Suppose  now  that  some 
one  not  of  our  Church,  yet  on  friendly  terms  with  the  Bishop,  after 
reading  the  Pastoral  in  one  of  the  journals  of  the  day,  should  say 
to  him,  "  It  must  be  exceedingly  painful  to  you,  sir,  to  find  that 
any  of  your  clergy,  especially  those  who  have  stood  so  well  in  the 
public  estimation,  can  yet  be  so  deficient  as  you  have  shown  them 
to  be  in  moral  principle.     You  have  made  it  plain  that  after 
swearing  to  do  one  thing,  they  have  done  another.     We  are  accus- 
tomed to  look  up  to  the  Episcopal  clergy  as  gentlemen  of  a  nice 
sense  of  honor ;  it  seems  there  are  exceptions,  and  these  where 
they  might  have  been  least  expected"— would  not  the  Bishop  at 
once  have  disclaimed  such  an  inference  of  his  friend  ?     Would  he 
not  tell  him  that  he  did  not  rightly  apprehend  the  case,^  and  then 
proceed  to  inform  him  that  the  brethren  censured  for  infringing 
certain  laws  of  the  Church  contend  for  a  construction  of  those  laws 
which  allowed  them  the  liberty  in  which  they  had  indulged  with 
a  good  conscience  ?      "I  cannot  admit  their  construction,"  the 
Bishop  would  say  ;  "but  neither  would  I  question  their  honesty  in 
maintaining  it.      It  was  my  duty  to  expose  the  illegality  of  their 
acts,  but  without  intending  to  impeach  their  regard  for  their 
sacred  word.      They  are  good  men  and  true,  only  they  have  very 
wrong  notions  on  some  important  points,  which,  however,  arc  not 
entirely  novel  in  our  Communion."    DoAbtless,  something  like 
this  would  have  been  the  apology  of  our  good  father  for  his  erring 
sons  to  an  outsider  in  private.     Why  then  is  it  so  wholly  wanting 
when  he  arraigns  them  before  the  outside  world  ?    Could  no  salvo 
be  imagined  which  would  have  been  really  in  that  conciliatory 
spirit  in  which  the  Pastoral  would  not  appear  wanting  ?     With  all 
its  kindliness,  there  is  rather  a  stint  of  the  charity  which,  believ- 
ing all  things,  might  have  believed,  and  ingenuously  have  ex- 
pressed the  belief,  in  some  sincere  and  reasonable  plea,  mitigating 
the  fault  of  the  asserted  transgressions.      Certainly  the  following 
are  not  the  palliations  of  charity  :  "The  Church  will  endure  no 
trifling  with  what  upon  indubitable  evidence  she  avers  to  be  the 


truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth  of  God."     Of 
course  it  is  implied  that  there  has  been  such  trifling,  or  why  speak 
"  Violation  of  obligations  so  solemnly  assumed."    "  Gross 
innovation  and  flagrant  violation  of  the  spirit  and  intent  of  our 
"  Disobedience  to  laws  to  which  we  have  given  our  as- 
sent—disobedience to  the  laws  of  that  spiritual  household  of  which 
we  are  members— is  enough  to  vitiate  any  course  of  action,  how- 
ever, in  other  respects,  it  may  commend  itself  to  certain  amiable 
feelings  of  our  nature."     "  If  while  we  rush  out  of  our  legitimate 
sphere,  and  violate  the  laws  of  that  sphere,  we  create  division  in 
the  circle  where  our  first  duties  are  appointed,"  etc.     "  The  mere 
promptings  of  sentiment  and  self-will,  which  disregard  the  para- 
mount obligations  of  obedience,  can  never  be  really  useful,  can 
never  be  entitled  to  respect."     These  are  not  set  down  as  inde- 
pendent truisms.     They  have  their  application,  which  nobody  mis- 
understands ;  but  not  a  word  is  interposed  to  soften  that  applica- 
tion. 

Had  we  been  tried  and  sentenced  to  an  admonition  by  the 
Bishop,  it  would  have  been  administered,  I  trow,  in  no  strong- 
er terms  than  the  language  above  quoted,  and  that  in  private. 
Strange  that,  without  a  trial,  we  are  thus  admonished  in  public. 

So  much  for  some  of  the  accidents  of  the  Pastoral.  I  will  pro- 
ceed, as  briefly  as  possible,  to  examine  its  substance. 


NO.  n. 

The  main  purport  of  the  Pastoral  is  this :    No  clergyman  of 
our  Church   is  at  liberty  to  admit  a  preacher  who  has  not 
had   Episcopal   orders  to  preach  to  his  congregation,  or  himself 
to  preach  to  a  non-Episcopal  congregation  without  also  conduct- 
ing worship  at  the  same  time  according  to  the  Book  of  Com- 
mon   Prayer,  or  in  public  worship  in   his   own   church  to  use 
any  prayers  but  those  in  said  book.     None  of  these  three  things 
can  he  do  without  incurring  the  guilt  of  violating  his  ordination 
Such  is  obviously  the  burden  of  the  document.    I  meet  it 
by  denying  that  the  ordination  vows  touch  any  one  of  the  afore- 
said points.    Let  us  look  at  them.    The  only  two  that  are  relevant 
are  those  adduced  in  the  Pastoral,  the  first  of  which  is  this  :  "  I 
do  believe  the  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  to 
be  the  word  of  God,  and  to  contain  all  things  necessary  to  salva- 


8 


tion  ;  and  I  do  solemnly  engage  to  conform  to  the  doctrines  and 
worshtj*  oft/f  P rot,  ,^( ant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  Mates." 
00  fault  is  intimated  in  regard  to  the  Holy  Scriptures  or  the 
doctrines  of  the  Church,  we  are  concerned  only  to  inquire,  What 
is  that  conformity  to  the  worship  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  to  which  we  are  thus  solemnly  engaged  ?     Of  course  it  is 
conformity  to  that  order  of  worship  which  is  set  forth  in  the  Book 
of  Common  Prayer.      But  when  is  that  conformity  required? 
Evidently  on  all  the  occasions  for  which  the  book  is  designed— and 
what  those  occasions,  are  plainly  appears  from  the  book  itself.     It 
appoints  not  only  what  the  minister,  but  also  what  the  people, 
shall  say  and  do;  accordingly,  they  must  be  people  more  or  less 
used  to  the  book.     The  service  which  it  ordains  cannot  be  offered 
by  a  minister  alone,  for  thus  offered  it  would  not  be  the  worship 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church.    In  order  to  be  that,  it  must 
be  a  joint  service  of  the  minister  and  people,  which  requires  that 
the  people  take  their  part,  of  course  knowing  what  their  part  is. 
In  other  words,  there  must  be  a  congregation  of  this  Church.     A 
minister  celebrating  divine  service  in  such  a  congregation,  and  on 
the  occasions  contemplated  in  the  book,  is  bound  to  conform  to  it 
prescribed  order.    There  are  occasions  of  divine  service  which  the 
book  has  not  provided  for,  or  not  in  any  adequate  degree,  such 
as  Sunday-school  and  Missionary  meetings,  laying  of  the   corner- 
stones of  churches,  private  funeral  services,  not  to  speak  of  house- 
hold devotions,  prayer  with  the  sick  and  bereaved,  etc.     For  such 
purposes  no  one  contends  that  he  is  restricted  exclusively  to  the 
Liturgy.      This    is  seen  by  the  numerous    manuals  of  Family 
Prayers,  Clergymen's  Companions,  etc.     But  it  is  too  evident  to 
be  further  argued,  that  the  required  conformity  is  that  which  has 
been  stated.    The  clergyman  who,  Sunday  after  Sunday,  year  in 
and  year  out,  conducts  the  regular  services  of  his  church  accord- 
in"  to  the  order  of  the  Prayer-Book,  fulfils  his  obligation  to  "  con- 
form  to  the  worship  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church."  Whether 
or  not  he  does  any  thing  over  and  above  that  order,  so  as  it  be 
not  contrary  to  it  in  doctrine  or  spirit-whether  or  not  he  uses 
the  Liturgy  when  he  preaches  to  congregations  not  of  this  Church, 
are  questions  wide  of  the  point  in  hand.     They  do  not  touch  it 
one  way  or  the  other.     So  long  as  he  complies  with  the  rubric, 
he  may  pour  out  his  heart  with  and  for  his  people  as  often  as 

*  The  canon  will  be  attended  to  hereafter ;  we  are  concerned  now  with  the 
ordination  promise. 


is  moved  thereto— he  may  discourse  in  "  meeting-houses  "  without 
uttering  a  collect  from  the  Liturgy,  and  yet  be  a  strict  conformist 
to  the  worship  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church.  I  am  not 
saying  what  a  true  affection  for  the  Liturgy  might  more  or  less 
dictate  when  he  is  not  bound  to  use  it,  but  only  what  he  is  at  lib- 
erty to  do,  and  yet  keep  within  the  line  of  his  duty. 

The  other  promise  adduced  by  the  Pastoral  it  thus  quotes  : 
"  Then  in  the  midst  of  the  service  of  ordination,  as  we  stood  be- 
fore the  Bishop  and  the  Holy  Table,  we  were  asked : 

'  Will  you  then  give  your  faithful  diligence  always  so  to  min- 
ister the  doctrine  and  Sacraments  and  the  discipline  of  Christ,  as 
the  Lord  hath  commanded,  and  as  this  Church  hath  received  the 
same,  according  to  the  Commandments  of  God,  so  that  you  may 
teach  the  people  committed  to  your  care  and  charge,  to  keep  and 
observe  the  same  ? ' 

"  To  which  each  of  us  deliberately  replied,  '  I  will  so  do  by  the 
help  of  the  Lord:  "  * 

The  italics  are  in  the  Pastoral.  Here  observe  that  the  words, 
"  as  this  Church  hath  received  the  same,"  refer  as  much  to  the 
doctrines  and  Sacraments,  as  to  the  discipline  of  Christ,  though, 
if  I  mistake  not,  the  Pastoral  would  confine  them  to  the  latter,  to 
favor  the  view  which  it  takes  of  the  discipline  of  Christ.  There 

*  I  have  transferred  the  above  in  full  from  the  Pastoral  to  show  how  the  same, 
mutatis  mutandis,  may  be  said  of  another  occasion  of  solemn  vows— thus : 

Then  in  the  midst  of  the  service  of  Confirmation,  as  we  stood  before  the  Bishop 
and  the  Holy  Table,  we  were  asked  :  "  Do  ye  here  in  the  presence  of  God,  and 
this  congregation,  renew  the  solemn  promise  and  vow  that  ye  made,  or  that  was 
made  in  your  name  at  your  baptism ;  ratifying  and  confirming  the  same ;  and 
acknowledging  yourselves  bound  to  believe  and  to  do  all  those  things  which  ye  then 
undertook,  or  your  sponsors  undertook  for  you  ?"  To  which  each  of  us  deliberate- 
ly  answered,  "  I  do.  Our  help  is  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,"  etc. 

Is  not  here  as  much  of  an  oath,  and  one  as  sacred  and  binding,  as  any  at  ordin- 
ation ?  The  Bishop  knows  how  it  is  kept.  He  looks  around  and  sees  the  conform- 
ity to  "the  vain  pomp  and  glory  of  the  world,  and  to  the  covetous  desires  of  the 
same,"  on  the  part  of  so  many  who  have  sworn  to  renounce  them.  He  sees 
what  numbers  of  his  baptized  and  confirmed  flock  are  immersed  in  the  sins  and 
follies  of  the  world,  more  the  servants  of  Satan  than  those  faithful  soldiers  and 
servants  of  Christ  whijch  they  were  signed  and  sealed  to  be.  Does  not  such  disre- 
gard of  sacred  engagements  equally,  at  least,  call  for  a  Pastoral?  Would  not  the 
clergy  be  thankful  for  it  as  an  aid  in  rebuking  the  inconsistent  lives  of  their  com- 
municants ? 

Well  would  it  be  for  the  Church,  and  her  ministry  too,  if  the  vows  of  Baptism, 
Confirmation,  and  of  that  great  oath,  the  Sacrament  of  the  Holy  Supper,  were  kept 
as  faithfully  as  the  ordination  vows 


is  little  hazard  in  saying  that  it  understands  "  the  discipline  of 
Christ  as  this  Church  hath  received  the  same"  to  include  Episco- 
pal government  and  ordination.  This  appears  from  its  words, 
which  immediately  follow  our  last  quotation  from  it:  "Let  us 
now  see  what  are  the  doctrines,  discipline,  and  worship  of  this 
Church,"  etc.  Here  "  the  discipline  of  this  Church "  is  quietly 
substituted  for  "  the  discipline  of  Christ  as  this  Church  hath  re- 
ceived the  same,"  as  if  the  two  were  identical ;  but  they  are  not. 
The  former  is  ecclesiastical,  the  latter  is  evangelical.  The  former 
embraces  the  whole  system  of  the  polity,  government,  and  order 
of  the  Church — its  laws,  canons,  and  rubrics,  all  which  no  one 
pretends  have  been  received  from  Christ  in  like  manner  as  His 
doctrine  and  Sacraments  have  been  received.  The  discipline  of 
Christ  is  guidance,  warning,  and  teaching,  according  to  His  pre- 
cepts. It  is  the  application  of  His  Gospel  as  a  rule  of  life.  It  is 
"  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord."  This  the  pastor  is  to 
minister  to  the  people  "  committed  to  his  care  and  charge  with 
all  diligence."  But  what  has  this  to  do  with  his  occasionally 
letting  his  people  hear  a  sermon  from  a  non-Episcopal  preacher  ? 
A  great  deal,  some  may  answer,  since  a  faithful  shepherd  will 
protect  his  flock  against  the  "  thieves  and  robbers  that  climb  up 
some  other  way."  This  is  a  good  answer  for  those  who  believe 
that  all  non-Episcopal  preachers  are  such  thieves  and  robbers. 
But  we  don't  all  hold  to  that  faith ;  not  a  few  of  us  believe  that 
among  them  are  many  true  shepherds  iu  other  fields  of  the  great 
flock,  with  whom  it  is  not  strange  that  we  should  show  our  fel- 
lowship. "We  cannot,  for  our  lives,  see  how  in  doing  so  we  vio- 
late any  of  our  solemn  obligations. 

Enough  has  now  been  said  to  substantiate  my  denial  that  the 
ordination  promises  touch  any  of  the  three  things  charged  against 
us. 

The  Pastoral  proceeds  in  words  already  quoted :  "  Let  us  now 
see  what  are  the  doctrines,  discipline,  and  worship  of  the  Church, 
to  which  with  so  much  solemnity  we  promised  conformity  at  our 
ordination." 

The  doctrines  of  the  Church.  "  Let  us  see  what  they  are,"  says 
the  Pastoral.  But  that  is  the  first  and  last  of  all  reference  to 
them,  except  the  doctrine  of  the  three  orders,  and  that,  indeed, 
is  dwelt  upon  and  magnified  as  if  it  were  articulus  stantis  vcl 
cadentis  Ecclesioe.  In  the  array  of  documents  presented,  none 
relate  to  the  doctrines  of  the  Church.  How  is  this  ?  Are  doc- 


11 

trincs  of  so  little  consequence  ?  Are  they  of  inferior  moment  to 
worship,  that  is,  the  order  of  worship — or  to  discipline?  The 
first  Bishops,  in  their  letters,  for  one  word  about  worship  or 
Church  discipline,  have  a  hundred  or  a  thousand  about  doctrine. 
Wherefore  so  remarkable  an  omission  in  this  Episcopal  letter  ? 
Not  because  its  author  undervalues  the  importance  of  the  sub- 
ject omitted — by  no  means ;  but  because  he  is  so  entirely  satis- 
fied that  there  is  no  occasion  for  him  to  dwell  upon  it — because 
he  has  no  suspicions  whatever  in  regard  to  the  faith  and  doc- 
trine of  the  brethren  in  question.  He  has  no  charges  to  bring 
against  them  of  heterodoxy  or  heresy,  of  rationalism  or  natural- 
ism, of  any  of  the  subtle  forms  of  infidelity  under  the  guise  of 
enlightened  Christianity.  In  these  and  all  like  points  they  are 
unimpeachable.  This  ought  to  weigh  greatly  in  their  favor.  It 
might  outweigh  the  worst  that  is  preferred  against  them  if  the 
sum  total  of  Gospel  doctrine — in  nothing  of  which  they  are  at 
fault — be  of  more  gravity  than  any  matters  of  ecclesiastical  order. 
It  might,  without  the  persuasion  of  the  Bishop,  stay  the  proceed- 
ings of  those  aggrieved  brethren  who  are  so  eager  to  bring  them 
to  trial.  "  Well,  after  all,"  they  might  say,  "  these  lawless  bro- 
thers of  ours,  come  up  to  the  mark  in  ninety-nine  points  out  of  a 
hundred,  including  the  mint,  anise,  and  cummin,  as  well  as  the 
weightier  matters  of  the  law."  It  ought  also  to  be  a  great  com- 
fort to  the  Bishop  himself  to  think  that  even  the  most  disorderly 
of  his  clergy  are,  nevertheless,  all  right  in  the  great  purpose  of 
their  ministry.  Such  would  have  satisfied  an  original  apostle.  A 
man  sound  in  faith,  doctrine,  and  morals,  must  have  done  some- 
thing a  little  worse,  I  ween,  than  aught  akin  to  the  provocatives 
of  the  Pastoral,  to  provoke  a  censure  before  the  Church  from  a 
Paul  or  a  John.  But  different  folks  see  things  with  different 
eyes. 

So  let  us  go  on.  We  are  next  confronted  with  the  preface  to 
the  Ordinal — that  strong  reliance  for  proof  that  our  Church  denies 
the  authority  of  all  non-Episcopal  ministrations.  It  will  be  suffi- 
cient to  quote  its  conclusion :  "  No  man  shall  be  accounted  or  taken 
to  be  a  lawful  Bishop,  Priest,  or  Deacon  in  this  Church,  or  suffered 
to  execute  any  of  the  said  functions,  except  he  be  called,  tried,  ex- 
amined, and  admitted  thereto,  according  to  the  form  hereinafter 
following,  or  hath  had  Episcopal  consecration  or  ordination."  The 
words  italicized  are  generally  understood  to  mean  that  no  man 
shall  be  suffered  to  execute  any  of  the  functions  of  a  bishop, 


12 

priest,  or  deacon,  unless,  etc.  Such  is  not  the  sense.  It  does  not 
consist  with  a  grammatical  construction  of  the  passage.  "  Said 
functions  "  must  have  an  antecedent,  which  is  "  bishop,  priest,  or 
deacon,"  consequently  "functions"  must  signify  offices;  and  such 
is  one  of  the  primary  meanings  of  the  word  with  our  best  lexi- 
cographers. The  sense  then  is,  "No  man  shall  be  suffered  to 
execute  the  office  of  a  bishop,  priest,  or  deacon  in  this  Church, 
unless,"  etc.,  which  is  a  different  thing  from  his  not  being  suffered 
to  execute  any  of  the  functions  of  a  bishop,  etc.  Preaching  is  one 
of  the  functions  of  each  of  the  three  orders  named — but  it  does 
not  necessarily  belong  to  those  orders.  A  man  may  preach  every 
day  of  his  life  and  be  never  a  bishop,  priest,  or  deacon.  He  may 
hold  the  office  of  a  prophet,  evangelist,  or  teacher— offices  named 
as  divers  forms  of  the  ministry  in  the  New  Testament  much  more 
distinctly  than  those  of  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons.  These  lat- 
ter may  be  also  prophets,  evangelists,  or  teachers,  while  they  may 
or  may  not  be  so  in  virtue  of  their  episcopal,  their  presbyterial, 
or  diaconal,  which  may  be  called  their  ecclesiastical  office.  If  we 
admit  this  distinction  between  the  ecclesiastical  and  the  evangel- 
istic office,  all  our  difficulties  will  be  removed.  Episcopal  and 
non-Episcopal  ministers,  who  are  true  preachers  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  have  a  character  in  common  over  and  above  that  which 
they  hold  in  then-  respective  churches — that  of  evangelists ;  and 
it  is  that  wherein  they  appear  when  they  officiate  in  one  another's 
churches.  When  Dr.  Adams  preached,  on  Easter  evening,  in 
the  Church  of  the  Ascension,  he  was  not  regarded,  nor  did  he 
regard  himself,  as  executing  the  office  of  a  bishop,  priest,  or 
deacon  —  certainly  not  of  a  bishop,  priest,  or  deacon  of  this 
Church  ;  nor  did  he  officiate  distinctively  as  a  Presbyterian 
minister,  for  he  would  carefully  have  avoided  teaching  any  dis- 
tinctive Presbyterian  doctrine.  He  was  there  in  an  office  in  which 
he  and  the  Rector  of  the  Ascension  are  on  a  level,  yet  a  higher 
one  than  that  of  bishop,  in  so  far  as  it  is  more  indubitably  ot 
Divine  origin.  It  is  difficult  to  see  how,  on  the  ground  of  the 
declaration  in  the  preface  to  the  Ordinal,  he  should  have  been  ex- 
cluded. Not  that  that  esteemed  brother  had  intimated  a  desire  to 
preach  in  any  of  our  churches— on  the  contrary,  he  yielded  to  an 
earnest  request  of  Dr.  Smith  and  myself,  soliciting  his  services,  at 
the  time  above  mentioned,  as  a  special  favor. 

The  declaration  in  the  Ordinal  may  be  more  briefly  disposed  of 
by  understanding  it  as  referring  to  settled  or  continued  office  in 


13 

the  Church,  as  if  it  said,  "  No  man  shall  hold  the  office  of  bishop, 
priest,  or  deacon  in  the  Church,  unless,"  etc.  It  means  that  epis- 
copal ordination  shall  always  be  required  in  the  established  minis- 
try of  this  Church. 

The  first,  fifth,  and  ninth  canons  which  follow  in  the  Pastoral 
need  not  detain  us.  They  are  quoted  to  show  how  exclusively 
the  Church  holds  to  Episcopal  ordination  for  her  own  ministry, 
which  none  of  us  deny  or  would  have  otherwise.  I  shall  have 
something  to  say  about  the  other  canons  which  seem  more  to  the 
point. 

No.  III. 

A  remark  toward  the  end  of  my  last  might  seem  derogatory 
to  the  office  of  a  Bishop.  What  I  meant  was,  that  as  the  office 
of  preacher  of  the  Gospel  was  more  certainly  appointed  by  our 
Lord  than  the  office  of  Diocesan  Bishop,  which  I  suppose  every 
body  will  grant,  the  former  is  so  far  the  higher  office.  The  great 
and  chief  office  of  the  Apostles  was  to  preach  the  Gospel.  So 
St.  Paul  thought.  Bringing  men  to  the  knowledge  of  Christ  is 
a  work  superior  to  that  of  governing  as  a  Bishop.  It  was,  how- 
ever, sufficient  for  my  argument  to  say  that  a  non-Episcopal  min- 
ister might  simply  preach  the  Gospel  in  our  Church  and  yet  not 
"  execute  the  office  of  a  bishop,  priest,  or  deacon  "  therein.  This 
the  highest  Churchman  might  allow,  while  Low  Churchmen,  so 
far  as  I  am  aware,  do  not  propose  any  thing  more  than  what  we 
call  an  "exchange  of  pulpits,"  with  their  orthodox  brethren  of 
other  denominations,  on  suitable  occasions,  to  show  their  oneness 
with  them  in  the  "  testimony  of  Jesus."  This  would  be  a  step  to- 
ward union,  involving  no  surrender  of  principle  in  any  quarter. 
We  have  Gospel  ground,  if  not  Church  ground,  in  common.  Let 
us  get  as  near  together  as  we  can  on  the  former,  and  we  shall  be 
in  a  position  to  see  how  far  we  can  unite  on  the  latter. 

The  Eleventh  Canon  says  :  "  No  person  shall  be  permitted  to 
officiate  in  any  congregation  of  this  Church  without  first  produc- 
ing the  evidence  of  his  being  a  minister  thereof  to  the  minister, 
or,  in  case  of  vacancy  or  absence,  to  the  Churchwardens,  Vestry- 
men, or  Trustees  of  the  congregation."  Evidently  this  law  is  not 
meant  for  universal  and  literal  application,  for  if  it  be,  it  is  for  ever 
being  broken.  None  of  us  dare  preach  for  a  brother  without  pro- 
ducing to  him  our  letters  of  Orders — we  could  never  make  ex- 
changes without  carrying  them  in  our  pockets.  Obviously  the 


14 

Canon  is  designed  to  meet  special  cases,  namely,  those  of  persons 
presenting  themselves  to  officiate  in  a  congregation  of  this  Church 
(implied  in  the  words,  "  No  person  shall  be  permitted  to  officiate," 
etc.,)  about  whom  there  is  doubt,  whether  they  be  ministers  of 
this  Church.  Such  may  reasonably  be  required  to  show  proof  of 
the  questioned  fact ;  but  how  can  this  be  required  of  persons  who 
preach  not  at  their  own  instance,  but  at  that  of  the  minister  of  the 
congregation,  and  of  whom  it  is  known  that  they  are  not  minis- 
ters of  this  Church  ?  Certainly  we  should  not  ask  non-Episcopal 
clergymen  to  prove  that  they  are  ministers  of  this  Church,  but 
this  canon  obliges  us  to  ask  it  of  those  whom  it  has  in  view. 
Plainly,  then,  it  cannot  have  non-Episcopal  ministers  in  view.  It 
has  no  bearing  whatever  on  the  preaching  of  persons  to  congrega- 
tions of  this  Church,  at  the  request  of  the  ministers  thereof.  "  The 
history  of  the  Canon,"  as  Dr.  Smith  observes  in  his  able  and  learn- 
ed Plea  for  Liberty  in  the  Church*  "  shows  that  it  was  originally 

*  Referring  with  admiration  to  Dr.  Smith's  pamphlet,  I  do  so,  however,  with  an 
important  exception.  It  speaks  with  satisfaction  of  the  sanction  given  to  the 
Greek  service  in  Trinity  Chapel.  It  thinks  that  service  was  quite  allowable  To 
this  I  cannot  assent,  however  much  it  may  favor  the  liberty  we  are  contending  for. 
The  Pastoral  repeatedly  refers  to  the  Principles  as  well  as  the  Laws  of  the  Church. 
If  the  latter  are  to  be  found  hi  the  Canons,  the  former  or  some  of  them,  and  those 
of  the  first  importance,  are  to  be  found  hi  the  XXXIX  Articles.  Now  the  XXIV th 
of  these  Articles,  says  :  "  It  is  plainly  repugnant  to  the  Word  of  God,  and  the  cus- 
tom of  the  primitive  Church,  to  have  public  prayer  in  the  church,  or  to  minister  the 
sacraments  in  a  tongue  not  understanded  of  the  people."  The  Greek  service  in 
Trinity  Chapel  was  in  a  tongue  "  not  understanded  of  the  people,"  not  understanded 
even  by  the  few  Russians  who  were  present,  and  for  whom  it  was  especially  de- 
signed, not  understanded  by  the  respondents,  who  were  drilled  by  a  clergyman  of 
our  Church  to  the  vocalization  of  unknown  sounds.  The  whole,  to  the  mass  of  the 
congregation,  was  a  dumb  show,  and  so  contrary  to  another  of  the  Articles  (XXV) 
which  declares  that  "  the  sacraments  were  not  ordained  to  be  gazed  upon."  If 
ever  the  Holy  Sacrament  was  gazed  upon,  it  was  on  that  occasion,  when,  as  was 
anticipated  by  the  managers,  a  congregation  came  only  in  the  character  of  specta- 
tors, to  some  of  whom,  in  the  expectation  of  a  crowd  at  the  spectacle,  tickets 
of  invitation  were  sent,  to  reserved  seats.  It  was  a  performance  of  the  Holy 
Communion,  if  it  was  that  ordinance  at  all,  seeing  there  were  no  communi- 
cants— not  even  the  clergy  who  were  with  the  priest  in  the  chancel,  sometimes,  I 
understand,  on  their  knees.  He  received  alone.  This  our  Church  forbids,  and  so 
another  of  her  principles  was  violated.  She  will  not  allow  of  solitary  communion, 
as  may  be  seen  in  the  rubrics  of  the  Office  of  the  Communion  of  the  Sick.  The 
Articles  of  the  Creed,  it  may  be  presumed,  are  hardly  less  than  principles  of  the 
Church,  yet  we  know  how  one  of  them  was  disposed  of  in  that  extraordinary  serv- 
ice. Nevertheless  the  Bishop  tells  us  it  had  his  cordial  approval,  without,  however. 


15 

designed  to  protect  our  congregations  from  impostors  pretending 
to  be  ministers  of  this  Church,  and  that  there  was  no  intention  to 
make  it  exclusive  in  the  sense  now  attributed  to  it."  If  it  was,  it 
is  strange  that  so  many  of  our  Bishops  and  clergy,  some  of  whom 
had  a  hand  in  making  the  law,  were  not  aware  of  that  intention, 
as  appears  from  their  inviting  non-Episcopal  ministers  to  their  pul- 
pits. Many  instances  of  such  practice  might  be  here  adduced.* 
But  it  would  be  superfluous  after  what  Dr.  Tyng  has  written  on 
the  subject.  I  refer  you  to  his  conclusive  letter,  to  be  satisfied 
that  if  iu  the  point  under  consideration  we  have  violated  the 
Canon,  we  are  not  without  respectable  and  ample  precedent.  The 
most  that  can  be  said  is  that  we  departed  from  usage — the  usage 
particularly  of  this  Diocese.  But  of  that  our  own  Diocesan  had 
just  afforded  us  a  striking  example.  After  his  allowing  the  per- 
formance of  the  Greek  priest,  (referred  to  in  a  preceding  note,)  it 
seemed  a  small  matter  in  us  to  ask  a  sermon  of  a  Presbyterian  di- 
vine. There  is  no  lack  of  instances  of  Presbyterian  preaching  in 
the  history  of  the  English  Church ;  but  in  vain  shall  we  search 

his  assuming  any  responsibility  for  its  peculiar  features.  Yet  he  could  not  have 
been  ignorant  what  it  was,  and  he  has  not  since  condemned  it.  He  has  not  said 
of  it  as  he  has  of  the  service  for  the  Germans  in  the  Church  of  the  Holy  Commu- 
nion, that  it  shall  never  again  have  his  consent.  He  says  it  is  not  likely  to  be  re- 
peated. A  littte  more  than  likely. 

*  A  quotation  from  an  old  record  is  not  inopportune  here.  Referring  to  the 
consecration  of  Zion,  a  Lutheran  Church,  Philadelphia,  1769,  it  says :  "  On  the 
second  day  of  the  solemnities,  the  services  were,  according  to  the  Liturgy  of  the 
Church  of  England,  and  a  sermon  was  preached  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Peters,  a  clergy- 
man of  that  Church,  (one  of  the  three  ministers  of  Christ  Church  and  St.  Peter's, 
Philadelphia.)  Several  other  Episcopal  ministers  were  present  on  the  occasion,  at 
the  conclusion  of  which  the  Rector  Muhlenberg,  who  had  delivered  the  sermon  the 
first  day,  addressed  the  congregation,  and  in  the  name  of  the  corporation  of  Zion 
Church,  adverted  to  the  many  kind  proofs  of  sympathy  they  had  received  during 
the  three  years  in  which  they  had  worshipped  in  a  building  belonging  to  the  Episco- 
palians, and  the  additional  gratification  they  had  just  experienced  in  the  services 
conducted  by  their  Episcopal  brethren." 

When,  as  a  great-grandson  of  the  above-named  rector,  I  was  invited  to  preach 
at  the  restoration  of  one  of  his  old  churches  in  Pennsylvania,  in  1860,  both  Bishop 
Alonzo  Potter  and  Bishop  Bowman  approved  of  my  accepting  the  invitation,  aware 
of  the  devotional  services  of  the  occasion  being  conducted  by  Lutheran  clergymen. 

Bishop  White,  when  I  was  with  him,  would  not  repeat  the  confirmation  of  per- 
sons coming  into  our  Church  who  had  been  confirmed  in  the  Lutheran  Church. 
He  spoke  of  those  who  held  to  the  necessity  of  doing  so,  and  who  nullified  all  non- 
Episcopal  ordination,  as  New  LigJUs.  Some  allowance  must  be  made  for  my  school- 
ing under  that  Patriarch  of  our  Church. 


16 

that  history  to  find  a  Bishop  lending  a  church  or  chapel  of  lire 
Diocese  for  such  an  Office  as  that  celebrated  by  Father  Agapius. 
Most  objectionable  as  it  was,  we  were  not  sorry  for  its  permission, 
in  so  far  as  it  was  a  tacit  yielding  of  the  ground  we  claimed.  A 
minister  not  of  this  Church  officiated  in  one  of  our  churches  with 
the  Bishop's  hearty  approbation.  We  felt  sure  that  now  he  would 
not  interpose  when  we  proceeded  in  a  like  manner  to  step  out  of 
the  ordinary  course  of  things,  practically  using  the  liberty  which 
we  believed  always  had  been  lawfully  ours.  We  flattered  ourselves 
he  would  be  impartial.  We  could  not  imagine  that  he  would  so 
cheerfully  grant  an  indulgence  to  brethren  of  one  school  of  theol- 
ogy and  deny  it  to  those  of  another  school  equally  tolerated  by 
the  Church.  To  be  sure  the  Oriental  officiator  had  Episcopal  or- 
dination— the  Presbyterian  had  not.  But  is  that  fact  every  thing  ? 
Is  not  the  character  of  their  officiating  to  be  taken  into  the  ac- 
count ?  Was  a  service  the  like  to  which  has  never  been  seen  in 
a  Protestant  place  of  worship,  with  a  mutilation  of  one  of  the 
Creeds,  really  more  homogeneous  with  our  Protestant  Church 
than  a  sound  discourse  on  a  text  from  St.  Paul?  Suppose  that 
each  should  be  repeated  for  a  succession  of  Sundays  in  our  churches, 
which  would  do  the  most  violence  to  our  feelings  as  Protestant 
Episcopalians — of  Churchmen,  if  you  please  ? 

Departure  from  usage  in  the  Church,  though  not  against  law,  I 
grant  is  not  in  itself  desirable.  Some  good  end  should  be  in  view. 
The  Pastoral  imagines  none  on  our  part.  It  hints  at  our  "  rush- 
ing out  of  our  legitimate  sphere  and  violating  the  laws  of  that 
sphere,"  as  if  we  delighted  iti  lawlessness  for  its  own  sake.  It 
discerns  in  us  "  the  mere  promptings  of  sentiment  and  self-will, 
entitled  to  no  respect."  With  such  a  construction  of  our  con- 
duct, we  may  be  thankful  that  it  deals  with  us  as  patiently  as  it 
does. 

You,  my  dear  Doctor,  do  discover  an  end  in  view.  You  say : 
"  This  movement  means,  and  every  body  knows  it,  that  the  Pro- 
testant Episcopal  Church  shall  recognize  the  validity  of  non-Epis- 
copal Orders."  I  deny,  for  my  part,  that  it  means  any  such  thing. 
We  are  satisfied  with  all  that  the  Church  says  of  Episcopal  ordi- 
nation in  any  of  her  documents  wherein  she  declares  herself  on 
the  subject.  We  do  not  wish  them  altered.  You  are  entitled  to 
your  interpretation  of  these  documents,  and  we  claim  to  be  equally 
entitled  to  ours.  You  act  on  your  interpretation,  and  carry  it  out 
so  far,  that  you  will  have  no  fellowship  with  non-Episcopal  minis- 


17 

ters,  even  in  their  capacity  as  preachers  of  the  Gospel.  You 
may  be  as  exclusive  as  you  please,  only  you  must  not  insist  on  our 
being  equally  so,  as  long  as  the  exclusiveness  of  the  Church  as- 
serted by  you  is  an  open  question.  Let  us  each  go  on  our  own 
way.  Do  not  try  to  force  us  into  your  way,  and*  then  say,  be- 
cause we  can't  see  with  your  eyes,  that  we  are  a  set  of  law-break- 
ers. This  is  not  kind.  It  is  not  brotherly.  Since  we  do  not 
think  alike  on  the  subject  which  divides  us,  let  us  hope  that  good 
will  come  out  of  our  diversity.  "We  may  keep  one  another  in 
check.  You  may  rein  in  our  freedom,  which  perhaps  might  else 
go  too  far,  and  we  may  withhold  you  from  an  opposite  extreme,  if 
indeed  you  have  not  already  attained  it.  Those  here  who  think 
with  you,  have  the  Bishop  on  their  side.  But  they  ought  not  to 
have  taken  advantage  of  that.  They  ought  not  to  have  gotten 
him  to  write  a  letter  at  us.  That  was  not  fair.  I  wish,  as  I  have 
already  said,  that  he  had  brought  some  of  us  together,  heard  us 
argue  the  matter  in  good  humor — perhaps  at  his  own  dinner- 
table— and  then  sum  up,  not  only  as  an  impartial  judge,  but  as 
the  affectionate  father ;  other  than  which  we  know  he  cannot  be. 

No.  IV. 

One  among  the  things  which  we  hope  to  gain  by  this  move- 
ment as  you  call  it,  is  the  allowance  of  our  liberty  as  individual 
ministers,  practically  to  acknowledge  our  brethren  not  of  this 
Church,  who  are  yet  one  with  us  in  declaring  the  everlasting 
Gospel.  This  end  can  be  attained  whether  this  Church,  as 
such,  acknowledges  them  or  not.  "We  have  no  wish  to  bring 
them  in  as  ministers  at  our  altars,  without  Episcopal  ordination, 
any  more  than  they  have  to  come  in  with  such  ordination.  Both 
parties  are  satisfied  with  their  Church  position,  but  that  does  not 
hinder  their  fellowship  in  their  Gospel  position,  because  in  that 
they  are  on  the  same  ground.  A  right  understanding  of  the  mu- 
tual relations  of  Evangelicism  and  Ecclesiasticism  would,  I  am 
persuaded,  do  away  with  our  difficulties  in  candid  and  honest 
minds.  This  is  a  subject  which  has  yet  to  be  studied.  To  lead 
brethren  of  both  schools  in  our  Church  to  give  it  their  thoughts 
is  another  gain  we  calculate  on  from  this  "  movement."  And  I 
would  now  employ  my  pen  in  doing  what  I  could  for  its  elucida- 
tion, but  I  must  go  on  with  the  Pastoral,  for  the  reasons  with 
which  I  began  these  letters. 
2 


18 

Canon  XX.  says  :  "  Every  minister  shall,  before  all  sermons  and 
lectures,  and  on  all  other  occasions  of  public  worship,  use  the 
Book  of  Common  Prayer,  as  the  same  is,  or  may  be  established  by 
the  authority  of  the  General  Convention  of  this  Church  ;  and  in 
performing  such  service  no  other  prayers  shall  be  used  than  those 
in  said  book."     We  will  take  the  latter  clause  first.     This,  under- 
stood literally,  without  limitation,  is  a  most  extraordinary  Church 
law — no  one  would  venture  to  call  it  a  Gospel  law.     It  is  a  piece 
of  legislation  unparalleled  in  the  Catholic  Church.     Where,  but 
in  our  statute-book,  is  an  enactment  to  be  found  prohibiting  a  min- 
ister of  Christ,  assembled  with  his  people  for  divine  worship,  or 
for  the  delivery  of  a  sermon  or  lecture  on  any  occasion  whatever, 
from  putting  up  a  solitary  petition  to  God  which  is  not  authori- 
tatively prescribed  to  him  ?     No  matter  what  may  be  the  emer- 
gency, no  matter  how  full  his  heart,  or  their  hearts  may  be  on 
some  solemn  theme  which  he  has  brought  before  them,  or  with 
some  subject  of  momentous  interest  to  the  community  at  large, 
impelling  them  to  cry  to  Heaven,  he,  as  their  organ  of  utterance, 
must  be  silent,  unless  he  can  vent  himself  in  the  stereotyped  phrase 
lying  before  him.   The  Bible  might  supply  him,  but  the  very  pray- 
ers of  inspiration  are  forbidden,  except  as  they  also  form  part  of 
the  ritual.  Where  but  with  us  is  there  such  bondage  in  worship — 
if,  indeed,  we  are  so  bound  ?     The  Roman  Catholic  clergy,  after 
the  canon  of  the  Mass,  and  the  offices  of  the  Breviary,  are  untram- 
melled in  their  religious  services  with  their  congregation.     Wit- 
ness their  numerous  litanies,  which  their  people  meet  to  recite 
in  their  churches — with  or  without  a  priest — and  their  fervent 
acts  of  devotion  for  the  Holy  Week,  suited  to  the  different  stages 
of  the  history  of  the  Passion.     We  recoil  from  their  ecclesiasti- 
cal slavery,  but  in  this  point,  compared  with  us,  if  the  law  be 
as  is  said,  they  are  free.     Here  common-sense  and  Scriptural  lib- 
erty interpose.     They  reject  such  rigid  and  heartless  understand- 
ing of  the  law.     The  opinion  is  extensively  held  and  acted  on, 
that  the  restriction  of  the  canon  bears  only  on  the  services  before 
the  sermon.*    Hence  the  practice  with  so  many  of  our  clergy  of 
free  prayer  in  the  pulpit,  in  conformity  with  that  of  the  clergy 
of  the  Church  of  England  ever  since  the  Reformation.     We  find 
prayers  before  the  sermons  by  some  of  her  best  dirines.     Bishop 

*  In  the  Liturgy,  the  sermon  is  part  of  the  Communion  office.     Are  we,  then,  at 
liberty  in  prayer  in  that  office  after  the  sermon  ? 


19 

Hall,  in  answering  certain  objections  to  fixed  forms  of  worship,  ad- 
mits they  would  have  force  if  Ave  were  exclusively  bound  to  such 
forms — which   he   strenuously  denies — and   says,    if  I   recollect 
aright,  that  no  one  is  so  foolish  as  to  assert  it.     Bishop  White,  in 
the  beginning  of  my  ministry  under  him,  recommended  me  to 
add  something  to  the  Collect,  after  the  sermon,  adapted  to  its  sub- 
ject, which  at  that  time  he  did  himself.     The  most  learned  of  our 
Bishops— a  leading  High-Church  mind— maintains  that  after  the 
prescriptions  of  the  Liturgy  are  satisfied,  there  is  no  bar  to  other 
acts  of  prayer  and  praise,  original  or  selected,  provided,  of  course, 
that  they  be  not  dissonant  with  the  Liturgy.     Such  admissions 
hardly  consist  with  the  letter  of  the  canon,  but  they  show  that  its 
letter  is  untenable.    Almost  any  interpretation  is  welcome  that 
rids  us  of  a  gag-law  in  prayer.     Not  so  thinks  the  Pastoral.     It 
enforces  the  canon  in  its  utmost  stringency.     "  The  Church,"  it 
says,  "  is  severe  in  the  provisions  which  she  makes  for  securing 
absolute  uniformity  of  worship."    One  would  hardly  imagine  that 
all  these  severe  provisions,  on  which  the  Pastoral  is  so  emphatic, 
and  on  which  it  goes  on  to  dilate,  are  to  be  found  exclusively 
in  this  solitary  canon,  and  to  be  found  there  only  by  putting  a 
prohibitory  meaning  on  its  language  almost  universally  rejected. 
In  vain  do  we  look  for  any  of  these  severe  provisions  in  the  Prayer- 
Book.     That  keeps  within  the  limit  of  its  prerogative.     It  dic- 
tates what  shall  be  said,  and  there  stops.     It  prescribes,  but  does 
not  proscribe.     It  does  not  forbid  the  utterance  of  any  words 
whatever  beyond  its  own.     But  that,  you  answer,  is  implied. 
Not  so.    When  our  Lord  said,  "  When  we  pray,  say  Our  Father," 
we  do  not  understand  Him  as  enjoining  exclusively  that  prayer^ 
which,  from  its  perfection,  might,  if  any  prayer  might,  be  our  sole 
liturgy.      The  Church,  then,  surely  would  not  go  beyond  her 
Lord,  and  say  of  her  "  form  of  sound  words,"  Thus,  and  thus  alone, 
shall  ye  pray.     No,  no.     It  is  the  canon,  in  its  hard  sense,  not  the 
dear  old  Prayer-Book,  which  knows  the  Bible  too  well  to  abridge 
our  Bible  rights. 

"  The  Church  will  not,"  adds  the  Pastoral,  "  allow  her  children 
to  be  disturbed  in  their  solemn  acts  of  worship  by  the  intrusion 
of  novel  forms  or  expressions.  She  leaves  nothing  to  the  fancy 
or  caprice  of  the  officiating  minister."  A  paraphrase  of  the  same 
canon.  But  why  should  ministers,  in  using  their  privilege  in 
prayer,  be  thought  of  only  as  intruding  "  novel  forms  and  expres- 
sions," and  following  their  "  fancy  or  caprice "  ?  Have  they 


20 

learned  nothing  by  the  use  of  the  Prayer-Book  ?  Has  it  no  edu- 
cational power  ?  Does  it  not  teach  how  as  well  as  what  to  pvay  ? 
"  Nothing  can  be  more  clear  and  absolute  than  the  law  which  the 
Church  has  ordained,  and  undoubtedly  means  to  enforce."  "  The 
only  exception  is  the  permission  given  to  the  Bishop,  and  only  to 
the  Bishop,  to  set  forth  temporarily  prayers  for  special  and  extra- 
ordinary occasions."  Suppose  the  Bishop  fails  to  do  so,  are  we 
then  to  be  all  dumb  in  public  prayer  on  all  such  "  special  and  ex- 
traordinary occasions  "  ?  As  the  Pastoral  is  so  strong  and  em- 
phatic on  this  point,  it  must  aim  at  some  recent  and  marked  of- 
fences of  the  kind  in  view.  Whoever  have  been  the  offenders, 
they  are  not  likely  to  be  oppressed  with  any  grievous  sense  of 
guilt.  They  may  appeal  to  the  common-sense  and  the  common 
heart  of  Christianized  humanity.  They  may  challenge  the  pro- 
duction of  a  single  adverse  text  of  Holy  Writ.  As  to  Holy 
Writ,  however,  the  Pastoral  is  remarkably  barren  of  its  language 
on  this  or  any  of  the  subjects  of  its  complaints.  Perhaps  its  ref- 
erence here  is  to  the  praying  of  some  of  us,  as  AVC  were  moved, 
during  the  rebellion.  But  how,  if  we  had  any  souls  to  move  us, 
or  if  we  had  any  faith  in  prayer,  could  we  refrain  ?  When  the 
news  ever  and  anon  came  of  the  slaughter  of  thousands  and  tens 
of  thousands  of  our  countrymen,  of  our  fellow-citizens,  of  our 
neighbors,  should  we  have  ignored  it  in  our  addresses  to  the  Most 
High?  Should  we  have  had  nothing  to  say  in  behalf  of  the  dy- 
ing, the  wounded,  the  agonizing  weltering  in  the  gore  of  the  bat- 
tle-field, with  all  its  horrors  before  our  eyes  ?  Nothing  in  behalf 
of  the  stricken  homes,  the  Rachels  weeping  for  their  children,  the 
wives  suddenly-  made  widows,  the  little  ones  made  fatherless, 
while  we  heard  their  wailing  and  lamentation  over  the  land, 
South  as  well  as  North?  Should  all  our  sympathies  have  been 
confined  to  a  brief  word  of  an  adapted  Collect  ?  Should  none 
but  every-day  and  general  petitions*  go  up  from  our  lips,  to  min- 
gle with  the  sighing  of  our  prisoners  to  the  Father  of  Mercies? 
and  all  because  the  Prayer-Book  or  the  Bishop  gave  us  nothing 
wherewith  at  such  times,  to  come  before  the  Lord  ?  When  the 
whole  country  reeled  as  the  lightning  flashed  through  it  the  terri- 
fic \rord  of  the  murder  of  the  President,  and  we  bowed  in  our 

*  It  may  be  said  that  we  may  make  mental  and  particular  applications  of  tho 
general  petitions  of  the  Liturgy,  especially  those  all-embracing  ones  of  the  Litany. 
Very  true.  So  we  can  when  prayers  are  asked  for  a  sick  person,  or  for  one  going 
to  sea,  but  people  will  have  the  special  prayer. 


21 

sanctuaries  before  the  Sovereign  Disposer  of  events,  should  we 
have  stifled  our  hearts  and  uttered  no  supplications  dictated  by 
that  event  in  His  providence,  crushing  the  heart  of  millions,  and 
changing,  for  aught  we  knew,  the  whole  current  of  our  nation's 
fortunes  ?  No  earnest  cries,  that  out  of  that  darkness  He  would 
bring  light ;  no  litany,  that  the  people  might  learn  what  He  would 
teach  them  by  that  undreamed-of  reverse  of  His  hand  ?  No 
prayer  extraordinary  for  the  Magistrate  suddenly  lifted  to  su- 
preme command,  that  he  might  be  endowed  with  wisdom  extra- 
ordinary for  his  new  and  tremendous  responsibilities,  and  that  he 
might  call  to  him  counsellors  seeking  counsel  of  God  ?  Nothing 
— nothing  at  all  out  of  the  ordinary  routine,  but  the  "  Prayer  for 
Persons  in  Affliction,"  commended  to  us  on  that  occasion  by  our 
Diocesan ! 

But  enough.  This  idea  of  not  a  syllable  beyond  the  litera 
scripta  under  all  circumstances,  and  "  without  exception,"  is  sim- 
ply monstrous.  Doubtless  it  is  the  Bishop's  prerogative  to  set 
forth  what  he  deems  expedient  for  all  the  clergy  and  congrega- 
tions of  his  diocese,  but  we  have  prerogatives  also,  as  pastors  of 
our  own  congregations,*  and  liberty  of  prayer  is  one  of  them. 
Why  do  our  bishops  wish  to  monopolize  it  ?  To  increase  their 
responsibilities  ? 

But  one  question  more  on  the  "  absolute  uniformity  in  worship," 
which  the  Pastoral  insists  on  so  uncompromisingly.  Is  it  a  mark 
of  catholic  worship  ?  On  the  contrary,  is  not  such  worship  dis- 
tinguished by  its  variety — its  diversity  in  unity  ?  If  our  Church 
ever  become,  as  some  hope,  the  one  Church  of  the  land,  will  the 
canon  before  us  still  keep  its  place,  and  be  stringently  enforced, 
so  that  "  Dearly  beloved  Brethren,"  et  seq.,  verbatim  et  literatim, 
will  be  said  or  sung  by  all  the  myriads  of  worshippers  from  Maine 
to  Texas — from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific  ?  Yes,  when  all  the 
trees  of  the  forest  are  of  one  height,  and  their  limbs,  branches, 
twigs,  and  leaves  are  of  the  same  size,  form,  and  hue.  But  all 

*  More  than  once  persons,  and  they  no  loose  Churchmen  either,  have  thanked 
me  and  my  brother  of  the  Church  of  the  Holy  Communion,  for  prayers  we  had 
prepared  and  used  in  church,  at  different  times  during  the  war.  Doubtless  others 
have  done  the  same.  Would  the  Bishop  have  had  it  otherwise  ?  would  he  have  sup- 
pressed all  occasional  prayers  during  the  war,  but  those  set  forth  by  himself?  If 
so,  then  it  would  be  his  pleasure  that  in  all  that  momentous  period  there  was  less 
turning  to  God  with  special  supplications  in  his  congregations  than  in  any  congre- 
gations of  the  land. 


22 

our  bishops  do  not  dream  so  horrid  a  dream.  Some  of  them,  of 
whom  the  last  made  has  spoken  out  most  distinctly  from  his  warm 
heart,  (may  it  never  experience  any  churchy  contraction  !)  would 
be  satisfied  if  the  Christian  communions  around  us,  adhering  to 
the  ancient  creeds,  would  also  receive  the  ancient  episcopate,  still 
maintaining  their  own  forms  of  worship,  etc.  That  was  the  idea 
of  the  Memorial,  years  ago.  The  Church  as  well  as  the  world 
does  move.  Evangelical  Catholicism  will  be  understood  some  of 
these  days. 

No.  V. 

The  first  part  of  this  XXth  canon  (which  I  will  try  to  dis- 
pose of  as  briefly  as  possible)  the  Pastoral  also  interprets  in  the 
strictest  sense  —  though,  of  all  laws,  purely  ecclesiastical  laws 
should  have  the  most  liberal  construction.  The  letter  of  that  law 
before  us  is  :  "  Every  minister  shall,  before  all  sermons  and  lec- 
tures, and  on  all  other  occasions  of  public  worship,  use  the  Book 
of  Common  Prayer,  as  the  same  is  or  may  be  established  by  the 
General  Convention  of  this  Church.'1''  Accordingly,  it  is  not  suf- 
ficient that  some  prayers  of  the  book — a  suitable  selection  of 
them — be  used  before  any  sermon  or  lecture,  as  many  suppose, 
who  so  far  employ  it,  when  its  regular  order  would  be  impracti- 
cable, and  believe  that  they  thus  satisfy  the  canon.  It  must  be 
used  "  as  established  by  the  General  Convention,"  not  only  as  a 
whole,  but  in  all  its  parts,  and  according  to  its  rubrics.*  Accord- 
ingly, the  whole  Morning  or  Evening  Prayer  must  be  celebrat- 
ed every  time  a  minister  of  our  Church  preaches  the  Gospel. 
That,  however,  is  possible  only  in  regular  congregations  of  our 

*  The  rubrics  are  laws  of  the  Church  as  binding  as  canons — even  more  so,  for 
canons  can  be  made  or  unmade  at  any  one  General  Convention ;  but  to  abolish  or 
change  a  rubric  requires  the  action  of  two  Conventions.  Who  among  us  keeps 
all  these  laws  ?  Beginning  at  the  first,  the  order  for  Daily  Morning  Prayer,  pro- 
ceeding through  them  all  in  the  different  offices ;  "  The  Order  for  the  Visitation  of 
the  Sick  and  of  Prisoners;"  "Forms  of  Prayer  to  be  used  at  Sea;"  "Forms  ot 
Prayer  to  be  used  in  Families ;"  who  can  avow  his  conformity  throughout  ?  A 
strict  constructionist  must  contend  for  the  equal  obligation  of  them  all.  Usage,  it 
may  be  said,  suspends  or  modifies  them ;  but  usage  is  variable.  I  knew  a  clergy- 
man who  never  visited  a  sick  parishioner  but  on  entering  the  house  began  with, 
"  Peace  be  to  this  house,"  etc. ;  and  who  in  family  prayers  never  used  any  other 
than  those  in  the  Prayer-Book — believing  himself  so  bound  by  his  ordination  vows. 
The  brethren  aggrieved  by  our  canonical  transgressions  are,  it  is  hoped,  "  touching 
the  righteousness  which  is  in  the  law  (of  rubrics)  blameless." 


23 

Church  ;  because,  as  I  have  shown  in  a  former  letter,  the  rubric 
prescribes  a  joint  service  of  the  minister  and  people ;  and  such  a 
joint  service  can  take  place  only  with  our  own  people,  none  others 
being  qualified  for  it.  Hence  it  would  follow,  that  canonically  we 
are  not  at  liberty  to  preach  outside  of  our  Church.  This  conclu- 
sion you  would  not  admit — but  it  is  fair  ;  of  course  it  is  absurd, 
and,  therefore,  the  rigid  construction  of  the  canon  which  leads  to 
it  is  also  absurd. 

There  are,  however,  two  methods  by  which  the  law  may  be  lit- 
erally complied  with  when  we  preach  to  outside  congregations, 
suited  to  different  classes  of  persons.  First,  those  to  whom  the 
missionary  goes  with  the  message  of  salvation.  He  begins  with 
giving  them  lessons  in  the  Prayer-Book.  Ere  he  stands  up  before 
them  as  an  ambassador  of  Christ,  he  does  the  schoolmaster,  and 
drills  them  in  the  words  of  the  forms  to  be  employed.  But  this 
might  not  always  be  practicable  or  convenient  at  every  place 
where  he  would  stop  on  his  way,  and  deliver  his  Master's  mes- 
sage ;  or  his  hearers  might  be  a  motley  crowd  from  the  highways 
and  hedges,  not  very  apt  in  the  use  of  books  of  any  kind  ;  or,  if 
he  had  the  time,  and  they  the  wit,  they  might  not  be  disposed  for 
the  preliminary  teaching.  As  they  had  come  to  hear  a  sermon, 
they  would  expect  him  to  set  about  it  at  once.  To  be  sure,  we 
cannot  tell  what  difficulties  might  not  be  overcome  by  one  in  earn- 
est in  so  primitive  a  method  of  preaching  the  Gospel — so  very 
like  that  of  the  Apostles  —  and,  therefore,  so  becoming  our 
Apostolic  Church  !  But  to  be  serious,  is  not  this  inverting  the 
order  of  things  ?  Is  it  not,  in  homely  phrase,  putting  the  cart 
before  the  horse  ?  But  the  publishers  of  the  Gospel  do  not  en- 
gage in  worship  to  draw  men  to  their  preaching — they  preach  to 
draw  men  to  worship.  We  read  of  our  Lord  discoursing  on  the 
mountain,  on  the  sea-shore,  by  the  way- side,  in  the  temple,  and 
where  not,  but  in  no  instance,  of  his  first  offering  up  prayers.  So 
in  the  case  of  the  Apostles.  They  held  forth  wherever  they  could 
get  hearers,  and  met  for  prayer  in  private,  with  their  fellow-be- 
lievers. Hence,  in  organized  assemblies  of  believers  the  order  of 
the  canon  is  not  unscriptural. 

Besides,  is  the  sacrifice  of  praise  and  thanksgiving  which  the 
Church  has  prepared  as  meet  offering  for  her  children,  suited  to  a 
promiscuous  gathering  of  the  ignorant,  or  the  unbelieving,  or  the 
profane  ?  Prayers,  accompanying  a  discourse  to  these  latter,  will 
be  rather  for  them  than  with  them.  Unbaptized,  or  making  no 


profession  of  faith  or  repentance,  are  they  t,o  be  addressed  as  the 
beloved  iu  Christ,  and  expected  to  join  in  tho  devotions  of  saints  ? 
To  use  the  Prayer-Book  at  once  with  every  multitude  whom  we 
may  be  called  upon  to  exhort  to  an  abandonment  of  their  evil 
lives,  might  come  near  giving  "  that  which  is  holy  to  the  dogs." 
Does  the  canon  require  it  ? 

Another  class  of  persons  to  whom  we  may  have  occasion  to 
preach,  is  that  of  enlightened  Christian  congregations  not  of  our 
Church.     With  these  the  Prayer-Book  may  be  used  by  having  its 
order  of  worship  printed  and  distributed  among  them,  and  by 
securing  the  attendance  of  a  number  of  respondents  in  the  con- 
gregation.    With  the  understanding  that  such  means  would-be 
take5!!  to  adhere  to  the  canon,  the  Bishop  sanctioned  the  preaching 
of  two  of  our  prominent  clergy  in  "  dissenting  meeting-houses." 
Perhaps  it  was  meant  as  a  precedent  for  our  direction,  in  like  cir- 
cumstances.    It  is  very  well  if  all  parties  concerned  are  satisfied. 
For  my  part,  I  am  not  inclined  to  follow  it.   I  shall  never  preach  to 
a  congregation  whose  mode  of  worship  I  believe  to  be  anti-Scrip- 
tural, unless  to  persuade  them  to  adopt  a  Scriptural  mode.    If 
their  prayers  and  praises,  whatever  be  their  forms,  agree  with  the 
creed  which  they  and  I  hold  in  common,  that  is  enough.    I  could 
not  be  so  sectarian  as  to  insist  on  their  coming  into  my  ways,  as 
a  condition  of  ministering  to  them  the  Word  of  truth.     Though 
they  were  content,  still  I  would  not  be  outdone  by  them  in  a 
catholic  spirit.    I  would  not  have  them  say  to  me  :  "  Proceed  in 
your  own  fashion,  if  you  must.     We  will  do  our  best  to  fall  m 
with  it ;  only  give  us  the  Gospel,  to  which  we  know  there  is  noth- 
ing contrary  in  your  Liturgy."     Nor  would  I  seem  to  contradict 
the  very  words  with  which  our  Church  begins  the  Prayer-Book : 
"It  is  a  most  invaluable  part  of  that  blessed  liberty  wherewit 
Christ  hath  made  us  free,  that  in  His  worship  different  forms  and 
usages  may  without  offence  be  allowed,  provided  the  substance  of 
the°faith  be  kept  entire."     Further,  it  is  unfavorable  to  the  devo- 
tion of  a  congregation  to  adopt  for  a  single  occasion  a  ritual  serv- 
ice to  which  they  are  unaccustomed.    Their  attention  is  drawn  o; 
by  the  novelty,  from  what  should  absorb  their  thoughts ;  and 
surely  it  is  better  that  they  should  be  really  worshipping  in  their 
own  way,  than  seeming  to  worship  in  our  way.    Our  service  used 
•under  such  circumstances,  is  not  likely  to  be  a  reality— and  the 
homeliest  reality  in  worship  is  better  far  than  the  goodh 
reality. 


25 

There  is  another  consideration.  Non-Episcopal  congregations 
in  their  organized  capacity  you  deem  scliismatical ;  why  then  are 
our  ministers  allowed  to  preach  to  them  at  all,  except  for  the 
avowed  purpose  of  reclaiming  them  from  schism  ?  How  does  the 
use  of  the  Prayer-Book  mend  the  matter  ?  Rather  it  makes  it 
worse,  so  far  as  reality,  again,  is  concerned.  It  looks  as  if  you 
were  quite  at  peace  with  them,  and  considered  them  altogether 
qualified  for  the  worship  of  those  who  are  in  full  communion  with 
the  Church.  Or  has  it  the  special  virtue  of  making  them  good 
Churchmen,  for  the  nonce  ?  Is  such  the  opus  operatum  of  the 
Prayer-Book  ?* 

When  some  of  us  officiated  in  our  neighbors'  pulpits,  we  con- 
fined ourselves  to  the  duty  of  the  pulpit ;  we  did  not  go  to  litur- 
gize — to  do  the  office  of  a  bishop,  priest,  or  deacon,  but  simply 
and  exclusively  to  deliver  a  sermon.f  We  minded  our  own  busi- 
ness. The  worship  was  in  other  hands.  If  they  did  not  conduct 
it  canonically,  they,  not  we,  were  to  be  called  to  account.  But 
for  this  we  are  called  to  account.  This  is  the  gravamen  of  our  of- 
fence. "  There  seemed,"  says  the  Pastoral,  "  to  be  an  express 
design  to  unite  with  the  ministers  of  other  bodies  in  the  same 
services."  Unquestionably  there  was  such  design.  Our  object 
was  to  show  openly  our  communion  writh  our  brethren  holding 
and  declaring  with  us  "  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints." 

"Can  you"  (as  one  facetiously  remarked,  alluding  to  the  Evening  Prayer  on 
fly-leaves  scattered  through  the  pews)  "lay  the  schism  devil  with  a  little  printer's 
ink?" 

f  One  of  these  occasions  was  Good  Friday  afternoon,  1864.  For  a  fortnight 
previous  I  had  spent  much  time  in  obtaining  the  signatures  of  a  large  number  of 
the  clergy  of  various  denominations,  to  a  circular  recommending  the  observance  of 
that  day,  both  for  its  commemoration  and  for  the  purpose  of  manifesting  the  unity 
of  Christians  in  the  doctrines  of  the  Cross.  Nearly  everywhere  I  met  with  the  most 
cordial  welcome.  A  few  days  before  the  fast,  Dr.  Adams,  who  had  taken  a  lead, 
in  furthering  the  movement,  said  to  me :  "  Will  you  not  now  come  and  finish  your 
work  by  preaching  in  my  church  on  Good  Friday  afternoon,  when  a  number  of 
clergy  and  people  of  other  congregations  will  be  present  ?"  A  small  reply  would 
it  not  have  been  had  I  said  :  "  Yes,  on  condition  that  you  allow  me  to  conduct  all 
the  worship  myself,  and  according  to  the  forms  of  my  own  Church."  I  shall  never 
forget  that  solemnized  and  thronged  assembly.  Never  did  I  so  feel  the  reality  of 
my  office  as  a  preacher  of  the  Crucified.  It  was  the  happiest  Good  Friday  of  my 
life.  Subsequently,  I  preached  twice  on  Sunday  evenings  in  the  same  church,  leav- 
ing the  service  to  the  pastor.  This  I  was  aware  the  Bishop  did  not  affection  ;  but 
I  had  no  idea  that  he  thought  it  unlawful.  I  was  greatly  surprised  to  find  him, 
considering  it  such  in  his  Pastoral. 


26 

What  canon  does  that  break  ?  Perchance  it  violates  one  of  those 
principles  of  the  Church  which  the  Pastoral  so  frequently  refers 
to,  as  well  as  to  its  laws  ;  but  as  it  specifies  only  laws,  I  do  not 
know  which  principle  of  the  Church  is  here  concerned. 

After  all  this  explaining  away  of  the  canon,  as  it  may  seem, 
you  may  ask,  What  does  it  amount  to  ?  what  is  its  purpose  ?  A 
very  important  one,  namely,  to  establish  the  Prayer-Book — to  ob- 
ligate the  clergy  to  the  use  of  it.  Without  this  act  of  legislation 
I  do  not  know  that  we  should  be  bound  to  it  as  we  now  are  in 
conducting  public  worship.  In  that  view,  it  is  one  of  the  most  im- 
portant of  the  canons  ;  and  such  it  is,  considered  as  an  imperative 
law  for  all  the  times  and  occasions  to  which  the  Prayer-Book  is 
adapted,  and  for  which  it  shows  itself  to  be  designed.  Thus  un- 
derstood, the  canon  has  all  its  scope  without  being  strained  in  its 
application  to  times,  circumstances,  and  places  beyond  the  con- 
templation of  those  who  enacted  it,  and  beyond  the  capabilities 
of  the  Book.  Those  capabilities  it  may  be  presumed  have  a  limit, 
notwithstanding  the  opinions  of  some  that  they  are  universal. 

As  to  the  penalties  attached  to  the  breaking  of  this  or  any  of 
the  canons  in  question,  we  need  not  have  been  reminded  of  them. 
We  are  law-abiding  men,  and  that  for  conscience'  sake.  We  have 
no  dread  of  admonition,  suspension,  or  degradation,  though  in  fact 
the  first  we  have  had  already.  For  any  such  offences  as  we  are 
charged  with,  or  for  any  repetition  of  them,  we  have  no  fear  that 
we  shall  be  "  ungowned  "  for  a  while  or  for  ever.  The  time  has 
gone  by  for  that ;  indeed,  in  our  Church  it  has  never  been.  Im- 
agine it  otherwise,  dear  Doctor,  if  you  can.  Imagine  a  number 
of  brethren  accused,  tried,  and  convicted  of  the  offences  in  ques- 
tion. Bring  the  court  before  your  eyes.  The  convicts  are  at  the 
bar  a waitin^  their  sentence.  As  in  civil  courts,  the  impartial 

O  •  •      * 

judge  will  give  the  culprit  the  benefit  of  all  that  can  be  said  in 
his  favor,  the  judge  ecclesiastical  in  this  case  could  not  do  less. 
On  the  contrary,  he  would  give  the  offenders  their  utmost  due. 
Fancy  him,  then,  addressing  them  somewhat  thus  :  We  do  not 
charge  you  with  any  want  of  fidelity  in  your  ministry  ;  you  have 
preached  no  unsound  doctrine ;  you  have  declared  the  truths  of 
the  Gospel,  and  doubtless  not  in  vain ;  you  have  been  faithful  and 
diligent  pastors  ;  you  have  (in  different  degrees,  according  to 
your  several  gifts)  fed  and  tended  your  flocks  with  a  loving  care, 
for  which  you  have  their  love  in  return.  As  to  your  Sunday  serv- 
ices, we  cannot  deny  that  you  have  conducted  them  uniformly,  ac- 


27 

cording  to  the  Liturgy — some  of  your  congregations  are  remarka- 
bly well  trained  to  its  order.  Your  candidates  for  confirmations 
have  been  well  prepared  ;  your  communicants  are  numerous,  and 
we  believe  as  exemplary  as  any  others.  Nothing  can  .be  said 
against  you  on  any  such  score.  In  justice,  too,  we  must  add  that 
you  always  liberally  aided  the  missions  and  charities  of  the 
Church.  Indeed,  your  whole  clerical  and  pastoral  career  has  had 
our  approbation.  But  not  having  the  fear  of  the  canon  before 
your  eyes,  and  instigated  by  "  the  mere  prompting  of  sentiment 
and  self-will,"  you  have  brought  men  with  no  orders  into  your 
pulpits ;  or  you  have  put  up  prayers  not  found  in  the  liturgy,  nor 
set  forth  by  the  Bishop ;  or  you  have  preached  while  ministers 
unknown  to  this  Church  have  prayed,  and  that  "  with  the  express 
design  of  uniting  with  them  in  the  same  services."  For  these 
acts,  especially  for  that  first  mentioned — "  a  flagrant  violation  of 
the  spirit  and  intent  of  our  law" — you  are  sentenced  to  a  suspen- 
sion of  your  ministry  for months.  That  is,  (if  the  judge  has 

the  grace  to  go  on  and  say  what  the  sentence  means,)  you  must 
cease  preaching  the  Gospel ;  you  must  forbear  calling  sinners  to 
repentance,  and  seeking  to  save  the  lost ;  stop  at  once  all  minis- 
terial teaching,  warning,  and  exhortation ;  separate  yourselves  from 
your  flocks,  though  you  leave  them  like  sheep  without  a  shepherd ; 
quit  every  Church  work  you  have  begun ;  above  all,  dare  not  to 
touch  the  altar  with  hands  which  you  have  given  in  fellowship  to 
schismatics ;  open  not  in  the  sanctuary  the  lips  that  have  been 
profaned  with  self-dictated  prayer.  Retire  into  solitude,  and  may 
it  lead  you  to  see  the  error  of  your  ways.  To  that  end  we  pre- 
sent each  of  you  with  a  Digest  of  the  Canons,  and  may  you  in- 
wardly digest  it  yourselves. 

"  Devoutly  read  therein  by  day, 
And  meditate  by  night." 

"  Quite  amusing,"  you  say ;  "  but  what  sort  of  Christian  minis- 
ters," you  ask,  "  would  they  they  be  who  would  give  up  preach- 
ing, the  care  of  their  flocks,  and  all  that,  though  only  for  a  period, 
rather  than  some  notions  or  practices,  for  which  they  can  hardly 
plead  a  sense  of  duty?  Strange  consciences  theirs,  if  for  the  sake 
of  such  things  they  could  be  reconciled  to  a  suspension  of  their 
sacred  calling." 

I  grant  it,  if  that  was  their  only  alternative  ;  but  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles  suggests  another.     "  They  which  were  scattered 


28 

abroad  upon  the  persecution  which  arose  about  Stephen,  went 
every  where  preaching  the  Word."  So  these  ministers,  silenced 
at  home,  might  at  once  set  out  as  missionaries,  supported,  us 
doubtless  they  would  be,  by  their  people.  They  would  not  for 
the  while  be  priests  or  deacons  in  the  Church ;  but  what  would 
hinder  their  being  evangelists  at  large  ?  They  might  labor  in 
destitute  regions — gather  congregations  for  the  Church — or  de- 
vote themselves  to  making  collections,  say  for  Diocesan  Missions, 
or  the  Episcopal  Fund,  for  all  which  the  Bishop  would  not  think 
them  so  very  naughty  as  to  prolong  their  suspension.  .If  on  re- 
suming their  places  they  also  resumed  their  irregularities,  it  is  not 
likely  he  would  try  them  over  again  and  suspend  them — unless  he 
thought  it  a  good  way  of  making  missionaries  or  Church  agents. 
'But  my  pen  won't  keep  serious,  so  I  had  better  stop. 

No.  VI. 

The  official  subscription  of  the  Pastoral  (the  Bishop  of  New- 
York)  is  consistent  and  significant.  It  is  not  an  abbreviation  oi 
"Bishop  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  New-York." 
It  is  designed.  Had  the  author  adopted  the  latter  title,  it 
would  have  been  a  tacit  recognition  of  other  Protestant  churches 
round  about — those  "respective  churches,"  referred  to  in  the 
Preface  to  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer.  Now,  if  these  be 
really  churches  of  Christ,  their  ministers  must  also  be  minis- 
ters of  Christ;  and  any  act  of  fellowship  with  them  en  our 
part  would  be  a  violation  only  of  our  peculiar  laws.  Granting 
that  for  the  present,  still  they  would  be  nothing  more.  They 
would  be  minor  illegalities,  but  not  grave  transgressions.  They 
would  be  offences  against  conventional  order,  and  would  be 
estimated  differently  by  different  minds.  A  Bishop,  looking  at 
them  in  that  light,  would  not  characterize  them  as  a  disregard  of 
solemn  obligations.  He  would  know  how  to  understand  them 
without  such  severity  of  judgment.  He  would  never  think  of 
issuing  pastorals  against  them— that  is,  supposing  he  considered 
himself  the  chief  pastor  and  overseer  of  but  one  communion  of 
Christ,  in  the  midst  of  others— the  Bishop  of  one  church,  having 
the  episcopate,  aside  of  other  churches  not  having  that  govern- 
ment and  order,  yet,  nevertheless,  true  churches.  But  suppose 
the  Prayer-Book  (the  preface  is  placed  among  its  contents)  is 
wrong.  Suppose  that  these  non-episcopal  churches  are  on  that 


29 

account  no  true  churches  of  Christ — their  ministers  no  ministers 
of  Christ — then  our  fraternizing  with  their  ministers,  our  con- 
sorting with  them,  are  something  else  than  infractions  of  order. 
They  are  that ;  but  they  are  vastly  more.     They  show  a  fellow- 
ship with  bodies  which  are  in  a  state  of  schism,  continuing  in  it, 
persistently  separating  themselves  from  the  Church.     Our  counte- 
nancing them,  our  bringing  their  preachers  into  our  pulpits,  is  to 
encourage  them  in  their  alienation  from  the  one  fold  of  Christ. 
Canonical   delinquencies  in  the   premises  become  ecclesiastical 
crimes  and  partake  of  the  guilt  of  schism.     Now,  this  is  the 
hypothesis  of  the  author  of  the  Pastoral,  which  he  indicates  by 
signing  himself  "  Bishop  of  New-York."    To  leave  us  in  no  doubt 
he  says,  that  "  in  his  official  capacity  he  knows  no  ministers  out- 
side of  the  Episcopal  Church  ; "  and  what  his  official  capacity  is, 
appears  from  his  title — Bishop  of  New-York — that  is,  Bishop  of 
the  Church  in  New- York.    Accordingly,  the  Episcopal  Church 
is   the  Church  in   New- York — all   the   other  Protestant   bodies 
(however  sound  in  the  faith  and  Scriptural  in  doctrine)  are  as 
bodies  out  of  the  Church.     Their  ministry  is  no  true  ministry  of 
the  Church.     The  Bishop  will  not  know  it.     He  believes  it  has 
no  authority  from   Christ.     No  wonder  then  that  he  deprecates 
any  thing  that  looks  like  an  acknowledgment  of  it.     No  wonder 
he  does  all  he  can  to  prevent  it — that  he  puts  the  strictest  sense 
on  the  law.     He  would  thus  strengthen  the  safeguards  of  the 
Church.     Pie  Avould  protect  his  clergy  and  people  against  the  sin 
and  peril  of  that  against  which,  together  with  heresy,  we  are 
continually  putting  up  our  prayers.     He  practically  carries  out 
his  theory.     He  is  consistent  on  the  ground  which  he  occupies. 
He  is  unquestionably  right. 

But  now  the  question  occurs,  How  does  he  come  to  occupy 
that  ground  ?  In  other  words,  How  has  he  become  Bishop  of 
New-York  ?  Let  it  be  granted,  if  you  will,  that  he  is  a  Bishop 
in  virtue  of  apostolical  descent,  who  has  given  him  "  New- York  " 
(whatever  geographical  territory  that  includes)  for  his  jurisdic- 
tion ?  How  has  that  been  made  the  province  of  his  Episcopal 
rule  ?  Has  it  been  with  the  consent,  or  by  any  action  of  The 
Church,  that  is,  the  whole  body  of  the  baptized,  or  the  whole  con- 
gregation of  the  faithful  in  New-York?  Certainly  not.  They 
do  not  know  him,  or  any  one  else,  as  their  Bishop.  Whatever  be 
his  jurisdiction,  he  has  derived  it  from  those  who  elected,  or 
those  who  consecrated  him  Bishop,  or  from  both  together.  But 


30 

these  were  delegates  and  Bishops  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  only,  who  therefore  could  not  convey  jurisdiction  beyond 
the  bounds  of  that  Church,  and  who  have  nowhere  put  it  on  re- 
cord that  they  meant  to  convey  such  jurisdiction.     A  Bishop's 
letters  of  consecration  certify  to  his  being  duly  made  the  Bishop 
of  a  certain  Diocese  which  is  the  aggregate  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  congregations  within  a  certain  State  or  part  of  a  State 
which  gives  the  name  to  the  Diocese.    When  he  writes  himself 
Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of-      — ,  it  is  the  same  as  Bishop  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  -      — .     To  assert  himself  Bishop 
of  a  region  in  which  there  are  hundreds  of  thousands  of  Christians 
with  their  churches  and  ministers,  who  have  never  placed  them- 
selves, nor  been  placed  by  any  authority,  civil  or  ecclesiastical, 
under  his  jurisdiction,  is  simply  an  assumption— of  course  not 
personal  assumption.     I  need  not  stop  to  disclaim  the  thought  of 
imputing  anything  of  that  kind  to  our  Diocesan  —  among  his 
clergy  ever  modestly  primus  inter  pares.    It  is   an   official  or 
rather  theoretical  assumption.    It  belongs  to  a  school  or  party  in 
the  Church,  one  of  whose  distinctive  principles  is  the  denial  of 
the  authority  of  all  ministers  not  episcopally  commissioned,  and 
who  carry  it  out  in  claiming  for  our  Bishops  (what,  however,  they 
do  not  all  claim  for  themselves)  the  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  of  the 
States  in  which  they  have  been  made  Bishops  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church.     This  is  their  dogma  and  their  application  of 
it.     It  is  that  of  the  author  of  the  Pastoral.     He  conscientiously 
believes  in  it,  and  accordingly  writes  himself  Bishop  of  New- 
York.     It  is  no  dogma  of  ours.     We  believe  that  there  are  true 
ministers  of  Christ  who  have  not  had  Episcopal  ordination  or  com- 
mission, and  who  are  rightfully  independent  of  him  whom  we  own 
as  lawfully  "  over  us  in  the  Lord."     Now,  our  acting  on  this  belief 
would  not,  in  itself,  be  a  cause  of  offence  to  a  Bishop  simply  of 
the  Protestant  Episcopal   Church,  but  very  naturally   it  is  an 
offence  to  the  Bishop  of  New-York,  for  it  acknowledges  men  to 
be  ministers  of  Christ  who  do  not  acknowledge  him  their  Bishop. 
Hence  the  present  trouble.     Evidently  it  comes  from  the  Bishop's 
actin^  on  a  creed  which  is  his,  and  not  ours.     If  we  believed 
with  him,  we  should  require  no  canons  to  keep  us  apart  from  our 
non-Episcopal  brethren.     The  law  of  Christ  would  restrain  us. 
So  on  the  other  hand,  if  he  believed  with  us,  while  he  might 
counsel  us  against  infringements  of  our  rules,  (if  so  they  be,)  he 
would  not  condemn  them  as  things  essentially  wrong.     He  would 


31 

not  imply  that  they  were  violations  of  the  law  of  Christ — which 
he  does  in  his  Pastoral. 

In  a  word,  it  is  a  battle  of  opinions,  and  of  the  practical 
applications  of  them.  Which  is  right,  the  Church  has  left  an 
open  question. 

In  conclusion,  allow  a  few  reflections  suggested  by  our  last 
topic. 

HOAV  strange  it  seems,  when  we  seriously  think  of  it,  that  any 
of  our  right  reverend  fathers  should  affect  office  beyond  that 
which  by  common  consent  is  theirs  ?  Is  not  that  full  enough  for 
their  ability  ?  Why  do  they  claim  the  bishopric  of  great  regions, 
when  in  view  of  what  they  owe  only  to  their  own  congregations 
therein,  they  exclaim,  "  Who  is  sufficient  for  these  things  ?  "  Why 
do  they  wish  to  increase  so  immensely  their  responsibilities  ? 
Surely  it  cannot  be  in  view  of  the  Day  of  account.  Instead  of 
contending  so  earnestly  that  they  alone  have  the  rightful  charge 
of  a  flock  of  Christ,  a  tithe  of  which  they  can  never  know,  one 
would  suppose  it  would  be  the  contrary,  and  that  they  would  be 
glad  to  discover,  if  any  how  they  could,  that  such  charge  is  not 
theirs — that  they  would  rather  welcome  than  repel  any  arguments 
to  prove  that  others  beside  them  and  theirs  have  part  in  the 
Gospel  ministry,  and  so  be  relieved  of  a  load  of  duty  which,  if 
felt,  must  crush  them  to  the  earth.  Well  might  they  say  nolo 
episcopari,  with  such  an  episcopari. 

But  I  may  be  reminded  there  is  another  view  of  the  subject. 
Our  good  fathers  who  believe  that  such  exclusive  authority  is 
theirs,  feel  bound  to  bear  their  testimony  to  the  fact,  whether 
men  will  hear  or  forbear.  In  conscience  they  must  assert  their 
Apostolic  .rule  over  the  population  of  their  respective  States, 
although  but  a  moiety  thereof  submit  to  it,  patiently  waiting  for 
the  time  when  it  will  be  duly  acknowledged.  It  is  theirs  to  bear 
witness  to  the  primitive  and  divine  order  of  the  Church,  never 
doubting  its  ultimate  restoration. 

Adopting  that  view  of  the  subject,  ought  they  then  not  to  bear 
their  testimony  in  some  living  and  practical  way,  which  would 
show  them  in  earnest  about  it  ?  If  they  really  want  to  convince 
men  of  their  apostolic  rights,  ought  they  to  confine  their  minis- 
trations to  those  who  do  not  dispute  them  ?  Desiring  as  small 
dioceses  as  might  be,  ought  they  not  to  go  freely  among  "  all  sorts 
and  conditions  of  men,"  and  win  them  over  by  their  apostolic 
labors  among  them  ?  Instead  of  shunning  all  churches  but  their 


82 

o-wn,  should  they  not  seek  and  take  every  opportunity  they  can 
get  of  visiting  the  congregations  of  "  all  who  profess  and  call 
themselves  Christians,"  and  of  being  heard  in  their  pulpits — not 
just  to  declare  the  divine  right  of  episcopacy,  but  the  substance 
of  the  faith,  the  great  doctrines  of  the  Gospel  in  which  all  are 
agreed,  and  which,  on  their  own  showing,  Episcopacy  was  or- 
dained to  propagate  and  conserve  ?  Instead  of  frowning  on  their 
clergy  preaching  in  "  conventicles,"  unless  with  all  their  para- 
phernalia, to  look  as  Episcopalian  as  possible,  ought  they  not  to 
encourage  them  to  proclaim  the  Word  of  truth  everywhere  and 
anyhow ;  to  be  all  things  to  all  men  for  the  great  purpose  of  win- 
ning souls  to  Christ,  trusting  that  the  souls  so  won  would  see  in 
them  the  Shepherds  of  the  true  Fold  ?  Would  not  this  (if  I  am 
not  too  bold  in  putting  such  questions)  be  a  more  hopeful  method 
of  bringing  men  over  to  Episcopacy,  than  maintaining  an  attitude  of 
indifference  toward  them ;  simply  asserting  its  claims,  or  arguing 
it  from  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  ancient  fathers ;  ignoring  all 
ministers,  sound  or  unsound  in  doctrine  alike,  who  lack  episcopal 
ordination;  making  apostolicity  of  orders,  as  it  is  called,  the 
sine  qua  non  of  the  Gospel  ministry;  as  if  such  apostolicity  were 
every  thing,  and  apostolicity  in  faith  and  doctrine,  apostolicity  in 
charity  and  good  works,  apostolicity  in  zeal  and  labors  for  Christ's 
sake,  apostolicity  in  turning  sinners  to  righteousness,  apostolicity 
in  life  and  conversation,  and  every  thing  of  that  sort,  were  all 
comparatively  nothing  as  notes  of  Christ's  ministers — notwith 
standing  it  is  thus  that  He  himself  teaches  us  to  distinguish 
them :  "  Ye  shall  know  them  by  their  fruits" 

W.  A.  M. 


A     001  008  821 


THE  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Santa  Barbara 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DAr 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


Series  9482 


